asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Japanese Government regarding the 106 per cent. officially recorded increase in Japanese exports to Rhodesia during the first seven months of this year, and with what results; and

(2) what representations he has made to the French Government regarding the 18 per cent. officially recorded increase in French exports to Rhodesia during the first seven months of this year, and with what results.

As my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State told the hon. Member on 13th June—[Vol. 748, c. 58]—and again on 4th July—[Vol. 749, c. 229]—this year, we are in touch with the Japanese and the French Governments on the question of the implementation of sanctions. The details of our discussions must of course remain confidential.

In view of the fact that the end result of two years of sanctions has been the devaluation of the British £ against that of Rhodesia, would not the Foreign Office be better employed, rather than in trying to get Governments to observe an operation which they clearly regard with contempt, in seeking for other countries to impose sanctions on us?

In some ways, the hon. Gentleman gets it altogether wrong; for example. the figures which he quotes about French exports, which show a distinct decrease over those quoted for the earlier months—

What?

As for his desire to bring the other issue into question, he knows that this will arise later today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statement on 23rd October by the United Kingdom representative on the United Nations Committee on Colonialism referring to double standards was made with the authority of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes.

Do not these words have a familiar ring? Does not the Minister recognise them as having been used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) in a penetrating analysis of attitudes to colonialism during a speech nearly six years ago at Berwick-on-Tweed? Does the Foreign Secretary now agree?

There are many things in that speech with which one could not possibly agree if one were wholeheartedly in favour of the United Nations. As for the impartial deployment of petitions on various questions which come before the Committee of 24, on 23rd October the United Kingdom representative expressed not only a party view but, I think, the commonsense view of all the people of this country and of every other country which is a member of the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the Malagasy Government on the question of a British base or staging post at Aldabra; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

In view of the rather unhappy experience of British bases in various parts of the world ever since the war, would it not be wise and courteous to discuss these matters with the Governments of neighbouring States who may, at least in their own imagination, have some interest?

We have received no representations on the matter from the Malagasy Government. If we did, we should be happy to explain our general policy towards Aldabra and the other islands, and we have made no secret of our ideas about the possible use of Aldabra. Until a decision is taken, any statement would be premature.

When is a decision likely to be taken about the provision of a staging post on this island, which is of unique ecological importance, and is this a joint Anglo-American project?

Questions of that kind should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. They are not matters for the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will seek to establish one or more conciliation committees on which members of the legislative assemblies of all nations which are signatories of the North Atlantic Treaty and of the Warsaw Pact are invited to serve, to discuss means of reducing tension in Europe and progress towards a supranational European community.

Her Majesty's Government are always ready to consider suggestions for promoting better East/West relations, but I doubt whether this proposal would be practicable in present circumstances.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a direct link between the war in Vietnam and tension in Europe, and that the establishment of conciliation committees such as I suggest in my Question might lead to the re-establishment of the International Control Commission and a move towards peace in Vietnam?

I do not dispute the connection of some of the matters mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but in present circumstances I would not think it likely to get committees of the kind which the hon. Gentleman has in mind. We already have contact with legislative members of Eastern European countries through the I.P.U.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many members of the Foreign Service are now employed upon commercial work in the United States of America outside Washington and New York.

Twenty-eight, Sir.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply and welcoming the extension of these activities deeper into the United States, will he make sure that the people sent on this job are adequately experienced in selling and marketing techniques? Therefore, would he not consider some kind of exchange or secondment arrangement with British industry?

That suggestion goes rather further than the Question on the Order Paper. We are concerned to give the maximum commercial support to our exporters, but it is not the function of the commercial officers of the Diplomatic Missions actually to sell or to be experts in the merchandise concerned. It is for the business men themselves to provide that, but we do our best to support every effort on behalf of our exporters?

Is not the truth that Her Majesty's Government are not sufficiently experienced in selling and marketing techniques?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to increase expenditure on overseas information in the light of the recommendations of the Beeley Report.

The future level of expenditure on overseas information is still under consideration.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, will he make sure that, if additional expenditure is provided, it is directed towards giving a modern image of Britain to improve our trading prospects? Can we have a little less of this image of the thatched cottage and the Beefeater?

My hon. Friend's views are shared by a great many people in this country, including myself.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is one of the most powerful and effective weapons in the cold war and has the great advantage of being bloodless?

I am fully aware of the importance of the proper level of expenditure on overseas information for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman as well as those given by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he intends having to stimulate the development of the European Free Trade Area.

In our view the facilities for consultation provided by the regular meeting of the European Free Trade Association Council both at the Ministerial and the official level are adequate.

In view of the protracted nature of our negotiations to get into E.E.C., would my right hon. Friend agree that we should seek with our E.F.T.A. partners some means of bringing the two European groupings closer together economically, socially and politically?

The agreed first priority with E.F.T.A. is to bring about the wider economic integration of Europe of which my hon. Friend speaks. In fact, at their meeting in Lausanne on 26th October, the E.F.T.A. Ministers expressed their unanimous desire for early and successful negotiations with the E.E.C. At the same meeting, a full review was made of the work of E.F.T.A., which is developing along the lines my hon. Friend desires.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest exchanges he has had with the United States Government regarding the war in Vietnam.

We are in dose and constant contact with the American Government on a wide range of subjects, including Vietnam. But these are confidential exchanges and it would be wrong to reveal details.

Could my right hon. Friend say how the events of the weekend will affect our position in this matter? Shall we go on being subservient to American policy in Vietnam, or shall we be able to break out of the straitjacket the Americans seem to have us in?

I do not accept the last part of the question, and I do not think the former part really applies. We shall continue the policy we have been following so far as Vietnam is concerned and have the contacts we have with the American Government, but as I have a number of Questions coming up later, starting at No. 11, on Vietnam, I think perhaps the whole of that area might be left till then.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he is now able to make towards achieving a negotiated settlement of the conflict in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take further steps to bring about a negotiated settlement in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to end the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Government policy on the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he will now make as co-chairman of the Geneva Convention to promote peace in Vietnam, in view of the fact that the intensification of American bombing has not forced Hanoi to the conference table nor achieved the conditions for a peaceful settlement in Vietnam.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 16th November.—[Vol. 754, c. 626–8.]

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that the Americans may use Polaris weapons with conventional warheads? Have representations been made to the American Government on the subject? Can my right hon. Friend say what Her Majesty's Government's policy will be if these reports prove to be true?

I do not think that I can answer a hypothetical question like that. I do not think I have seen the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. I should be glad to look at anything he sends me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use whatever influence he may have with the American Government to bring about a bombing pause and a Christmas truce, which perhaps would give a chance for the bombing to be suspended indefinitely?

As I have said repeatedly, I want to see the bombing stop. I want to see other warlike acts stopped and an early approach to the negotiating table—at any rate, the talking table. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have seen the speech made by the American President at San Antonio recently in which he made clear that he would be willing to stop the bombing only so long as it would lead to prompt and productive discussion. I only hope that Hanoi will respond.

Since reports have appeared here in papers like The Guardian that the Americans have been using antipersonnel bombs in North Vietnam, does not that show that President Johnson has lied when he says that the Americans are only concerned with bombing military installations? Will the British Government at long last dissociate Britain from the terror raids launched by the Americans on North Vietnam?

We are not associated with the terror in the North or in the South. We are concerned with bringing the whole bloody war to an early end so that talks can take place. As to the first part of my hon. Friends Question, I do not think that what he said is at all true—

Nonsense.

I believe that the President of the United States is trying very hard indeed to get a situation in which he can bring this to a halt.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in recent answers to the House his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, no doubt unintentionally, has tended to give the impression that the Government are equally critical of American action as they are of North Vietnamese? Would the Foreign Secretary now take an opportunity to correct that impression?

I have made it quite plain that we are critical in the sense that we dislike acts of warfare from wherever they come. It is not for us to apportion blame. It is for us to use what offices we have to try to enable the thing to come to a halt. I have no doubt that the Americans wish that to happen. They have in fact tried every single kind of way. I am equally in no doubt that so far the North Vietnamese and their friends have been unwilling to respond.

Is it not a fact that the British Government, a year or so ago, specifically dissociated themselves from the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong? What does the Foreign Secretary have to say about recent reports in many newspapers showing that there have been persistent growing attacks on Hanoi and Haiphong, including severe civilian casualties?

So long as the war goes on, as I said to the House some time ago and have repeated many times, this is the great risk. I am doing the best I can to try to bring it to a halt. When we keep reminding ourselves about what happens in the North, I repeat what I said once before to my hon. Friend: let us remember that there are many other things; for example, Saigon waters are regularly mined by the Vietcong, and nobody ever seems to protest about that.

Could the Foreign Secretary, in view of the remarks of many of his hon. Friends, stress that if they wish to get a political settlement it is far better to give some of the advice which they have been giving to North Vietnam and not to the Americans?

As I said at the Labour Party Conference at Scarborough, there are two co-Chairmen of the Geneva Agreements. I happen to be one temporarily, and I am in favour of reconvening the conference, but the other one is not. Perhaps the advice might be directed to the quarter which is unwilling to move and not to the quarter that is.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the United States has now unanimously expressed the view that this is a matter which ought to be raised by the Security Council? Would he support American initiative there, if taken?

I would wait to see whether there was an American initiative.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, due to the unsatisfactory answer to the question, I shall try and raise it on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, could I, through you, ask whether the charge that the President of the United States had lied is admissible under the normal rules of order which we apply in this House?

I am not going to withdraw.

Order. The hon. Gentleman is not being very helpful. I thought that discourteous references to leaders of foreign countries was something to be deprecated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations about the proposed expenditure budget for 1968; and what suggestions have been made about reducing staff costs.

We have stated in the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly, which is now considering the 1968 estimates of the United Nations, that we shall support a reduction of $5·6 million in the estimates. This includes a cut of $2·8 million in the initial estimates for staff costs.

As the budget for 1968 is about 12 million dollars-plus over 1967, will not the staff now run at something like 8,100, and does the Minister believe that the United Nations has been organised in the most efficient and economic way possible?

These estimates are submitted by the Secretary-General and they are scrutinised by a special committee of experts, the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary questions, and they are then considered by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly and finally approved by the General Assembly itself. It is usual for the Advisory Committee to recommend certain pruning cuts. In this case it has taken place after the most careful consideration of staffing costs, and, indeed, would represent this year a specially careful and close consideration of the number of staff needed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about financial assistance to the United Nations Association, which is in financial difficulties.

I am pleased to announce that, subject to annual Parliamentary approval, Her Majesty's Government are offering the United Nations Association a Grant-In-Aid for a period of five years only at the rate of £10,000 for the current financial year and for 1968–69, £7,000 for 1969–70 and £5,000 for each of the next two financial years. A Supplementary Estimate will be presented in due course to cover payment for the current year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this news will be greeted with a great deal of positive reaction in all parts of the House? Does he further agree that one of the most important characteristics of the United Nations Association has been its robust independence, and can he assure us that the Government will expect it to continue in that light?

Certainly, Sir. The United Nations Association has as its Presidents the leaders of all the main political parties in this House. One would therefore expect this announcement to be greeted with impartial enthusiasm on both sides of the House. It is also an Association which does an essential job in promoting interest in, and support for, the United Nations in this country.

Can the Minister say what will be the additional cost of our contribution to the United Nations in 1968?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the British ships trapped in the Great Bitter Lakes.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the Debate on the Address on 2nd November.—[Vol. 753, c. 343–4.]

If an international force, including dredgers, were to attempt to clear this international waterway south of the Bitter Lakes to liberate these ships, does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that either the Israelis or the Egyptians would attack it?

That is asking me to go into areas where I would prefer not to. We are doing what we can with the other nations who are concerned—we are by no means the only one—both to get the ships out of the Bitter Lakes, and to get the Canal opened. This is obviously a very urgent requirement for us. It is also an urgent requirement for other people. One of the reasons why we are giving so much attention to getting a Resolution from the Security Council on which progress to a solution of the whole problem can be made is our need to get the Canal opened.

I do not want to press the right hon. Gentleman too far, but can he say whether, in discussing the resumption of diplomatic relations with Egypt, he is pressing upon President Nasser very strongly indeed the feeling in this country that if our ships continue to be blockaded or marooned in Suez it will be difficult to commend to the British people the resumption of diplomatic relations?

I will not link them together like that, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that all the time I am pressing on the U.A.R. authorities, and those who can help, the need to get these ships out. I was very encouraged the other day to receive a letter from the skippers of four British ships there. It was written in very warm terms, and showed their morale to be high. They said that they were forming an association in the Bitter Lakes, and they were inviting me to be the only non-time serving member of it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are many in this House who will expect the resumption of diplomatic relations between this country and Egypt to be followed by the speedy removal of the physical and political obstacles to the movement of these ships, one of which comes from Merseyside?

I suggest that we should not link these two objectives together. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]— Because the question of the Canal is linked with a lot of other issues about which negotiations are now going on among a number of countries. I suggest to the House that we would be wise to keep it there.

Ought not this to be linked with the British ships in the Lakes? Surely the right hon. Gentleman can at least confirm that Sir Harold Beeley has talked about this to the President of the U.A.R.? How long does the right hon. Gentleman think it will take to clear the Canal, part of which I understand is silted up? What is the right hon. Gentleman's information?

On the question of representations to the President of the U.A.R., the right hon. Gentleman knows that Sir Harold Beeley raised this matter. I have informed the House about this. Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman knows that at my insistence Sir Harold Beeley visited the ships, and that as a result I had the letter from the skippers about it. Of course we are making representations in Cairo. When we have resumed relations and we have an Ambassador there we will be better placed to make them than we have been up to now, but I repeat—and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knows this—that this issue is in many ways connected with others which have to be solved elsewhere.

I have recently answered questions about the timetable for clearing the Canal. Estimates vary from weeks to a few months. It would depend, of course, on the size of the force that one was able to assemble and who was allowed to have the authority for doing it. Weeks or a few months is the usual assessment, but the longer the Canal stays shut the greater will be the silting up, and therefore the smaller the ships that will be able to use it once it is opened. I keep drawing the attention of the U.A.R. to the fact that this is a matter for them to consider very much in their own interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Mr. Sean Bourke called at the United Kingdom Embassy in Moscow; and if he will make a statement as to the reason given by Mr. Bourke for his visit.

On 4th September a man claiming to be Sean Bourke called at our Moscow Embassy asking about means of returning to the United Kingdom. The Embassy explained that his identity must be established before a travel document could be issued to him and, as he claimed to be a citizen of the Irish Republic, authority for this would have to be sought from that Government. He would also need a Soviet exit visa. He was asked to call again but has not as yet done so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Bourke was asked any questions about the escape of George Blake?

That did not seem to arise at that point. The point at issue was to establish whether he was who he said he was. If he is who he claimed to be, he is subject to a warrant in this country. This has nothing to do with the Blake case, but is for threatening to murder a police officer, and we would have had to take the necessary steps to arrange for him to come back to stand his trial if that were his wish, but we never got beyond that, because he never reappeared.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to the French Foreign Secretary's official proposal that Great Britain must devalue the £, as France devalued the franc, before Great Britain will be allowed to join the Common Market.

The French Foreign Secretary made no such proposal, either official or unofficial.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Lord Chalfont was the chief—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—I am reading because it is a very good question.

Order. Even if it is a good question is must not be read.

Was Lord Chalfont, our chief Common Market negotiator, informed of Thursday's decision to devalue the £ before he made his speech the following morning in Paris, or was he instructed by the Cabinet to deny this truth, and if so—[Interruption.]

Order.

—has this not destroyed his credibility in Europe?

It is very difficult to see how any of that question, read or unread, possibly connects with the Question on the Order Paper.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the French have devalued the franc quite a number of times, and is not this the reason why they are now so economically prosperous that they can lend us money?

I suggest that we leave the general question of the devaluation of currency until later in the day. On the first part of the question, the factual answer is, Yes, they have done it several times.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to stop the International Symposium on Industrial Development sponsored by the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation taking place in Greece on 29th November.

We do not want to disrupt the symposium, which has been arranged for the benefit of the developing countries of the world. The venue has now been confirmed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Is the Minister aware that Greece has been severely disrupted, and surely it is not too much to ask the United Nations to disrupt its programme and not to show tacit support for the present régime in Greece?

The developing countries, for whose benefit this symposium is being arranged, have made it clear in the General Assembly that they are opposed to any change in the venue, and the General Assembly, on 25th October, accepted without a vote the report confirming the arrangements to hold the symposium in Athens.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement of British policy in relation to the conflict between Israel and the Arab States.

We have continued to work within the broad outlines of the policy I set out in my speech to the House on 2nd November. One side or other in the Middle East has found objection to each of the first two resolutions laid before the Council and it was therefore clear that neither resolution even if carried could produce results on the ground. After intensive consultation, I therefore decided last week that Great Britain should table a resolution which I believe sets out a position with which both sides could live. It would enable the Security Council to contribute positively to a peaceful solution and to enable the Secretary General to appoint a representative to proceed to the area. The Security Council may reach a vote this evening.—[Vol. 753, c. 342–5.]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he say what progress he has made in securing the reopening of the Suez Canal? Would not the securing of that objective be a much more valuable contribution towards solving our balance of payments problem than devaluation?

As I said in reply to earlier Questions, the reopening of the Suez Canal must be of major national interest to ourselves as it is of major national interest to many other countries. That is why I gave the Answers that I did earlier. I am sure that, through all the work now being done in New York, we must try to get a resolution of this kind, and then proceed to the kinds of solutions that will lead to the attainment of that desirable objective.

Can my right hon. Friend say why he does not support a meeting of the two parties particularly concerned in this matter in order to see that a settlement is arrived at between them? Is he aware that if the parties did meet it would be only a very short time before a settlement was arrived at?

I am not aware of that as a fact. I am aware of it as an opinion of some people, but it is not an opinion that I share.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on Aden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about South Arabia.

I am glad to be able to tell the House that the situation in Aden and South Arabia remains quiet. Talks between Her Majesty's Government and the National Liberation Front are to begin in Geneva tomorrow. I cannot of course yet estimate how long they will continue.

Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that we have not only close personal relations but treaty relations with the Federal Government, and that we have some moral responsibility for their safety? Will he also bear in mind the fact that other rulers are not likely to have much faith in Britain if we allow these men to suffer because of their friendship with us?

The question of members of the previous Federal Council is a very difficult and complicated one. I have the hon. Member's point in mind and we will do what we can for people who may otherwise suffer, but I am bound to say that the Federal Government gave up and we have to deal with the authorities there, and that we are now doing.

Having withdrawn my Question No. 80, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can assure us that he will not promise arms or military aid of any other kind to the N.L.F. régime?

That is a totally different question, but I cannot give any such assurance. We are going into negotiations with the authorities whom I hope will be the successor Government in South Arabia. It would be very wrong of me to limit what we were going to negotiate with them about before negotiations started.

Are not we in danger of falling into a trap here? If we supply military aid following what is bound to be a hastily-negotiated independence, we may easily find ourselves supporting one side or another in a civil war, and that we must not do.

I do not see any circumstances in which the supply of military aid as such will be required, either by them or in our interests but, with great respect to the House, negotiations are about to begin. We are within less than a fortnight of the final date of our troops' coming out, and the establishment of the successor authority is very important. I suggest that I would do no good if I were to start laying down the areas within which negotiations should take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what initiative he intends to take to support the West German Foreign Secretary's proposal that the Oder-Neisse line should be recognised as West Germany's eastern frontier.

I know of no such proposal.

I will send a copy to my right hon. Friend. Will he bear in mind the fact that this matter has been awaiting solution for 22 years—ever since the end of the last war? Does not he agree that it is in Britain's long-term and immediate interests that there should be a settlement of this problem?

I do not dispute any of that. We have repeatedly said that it is our view that this must be settled in any peace treaty. All I am saying is that I have no information that the West German Minister made the statement alleged. If my hon. Friend has information on that subject, I shall be glad to look at it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he has already made one faux pas on this subject? Will he be careful not to make another one?

I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he will look at the matter again, he will find that the situation was not as he described it as being.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he now has for improving relations between Great Britain and the People's Republic of China.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) on 13th November.—[Vol. 754, c. 19.]

Will my right hon. Friend note that one way at least to assist this country in its present economic difficulties would be to make use of the potential market in that part of the world and that as long as our relations with China are bedevilled by axe-swinging in this country and riots in Peking we are placed in great difficulties? Will he note that we support his forbearance in maintaining such diplomatic relations as exist, but that we urge him to take such action as is open to him to improve them?

Yes, we are trying to do exactly that. It is worth bearing in mind that the level of our exports has been maintained despite the difficulties and that the estimated total for the first nine months of 1967 was just under £34 million. We will go on doing what we can from this end both to maintain and improve relations, and I shall be glad for any help that my hon. Friend can give me at the other end.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the importance of trade with the Republic of China, whose imports are increasing enormously and in which we have a negligible share?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he now proposes to take to facilitate the expansion of trade and cultered exchange between Great Britain and the German Democratic Republic.

As our trade with East Germany has been developing satisfactorily, and cultural exchanges are taking place on private initiative, my right hon. Friend does not propose taking any special steps in these fields.

Will the Minister bring to his right hon. Friend's notice the greater likelihood of my being able to go to Berlin than to Peking, and that if I am able to do so I shall convey those feelings? But will he note that there are still continuing obstacles to trade between this country and the fifth largest industrial country in Europe? In these difficult economic times is it not wise to accord some measure of de facto recognition to the German Democratic Republic?

Despite our non-recognition trade has been developing satisfactorily under private arrangements and, as my hon. Friend knows, exports doubled between 1965 and 1966. We shall be most grateful for anything which my hon. Friend can do to increase them further in the next year.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, in spite of any increase, we are doing much worse in this market than are our West European competitors, who are bound by the same N.A.T.O. rules as we are in their dealings with the German Democratic Republic, because those rules are hon- oured by Great Britain and Great Britain alone, and the others dodge round them?

If my hon. Friend will let me have any details, I shall be happy to look at them.

In order to try to improve trade with East Germany, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the restrictions on East Germans coming to this country as buyers of equipment and, in particular, the delays and difficulties over obtaining passport visas by East Germans?

The hon. Member has a later Question on this subject, but I can tell him that already this year 619 applications for temporary visas have been granted to businessmen visiting this country from East Germany, and none have been refused.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government are making to the Spanish Government concerning the continued harassment of Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the proposed talks with Spain are to commence; and what subjects have been placed on the agenda by each side.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary told the House on 23rd October, I have told the Spanish Ambassador in London that talks on Anglo-Spanish relations, including the question of Gibraltar, could begin in the near future between senior officials of the two Governments. In these talks we will try to bring about an improvement in the situation at Gibraltar. There is no formal agenda.—[Vol. 751, c. 1349–50.]

Would the Foreign Secretary take an early opportunity to remind Madrid that General Franco's remark about Gibraltar being Spanish is incorrect? Second, will he inform us whether or not the attempted interference with British in-flying aircraft is taking place or has ceased?

All these matters, particularly the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, will, of course, be discussed in the talks. On the first part, I set out our position very clearly not only in talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister but in my speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is on that basis that we shall be holding the talks.

When my right hon. Friend says that there will be discussions about Gibraltar, will he confirm that the sovereignty of Gibraltar is not negotiable?

My hon. Friend will have seen that, in the speech to which I referred at the United Nations and again in Lord Caradon's speech, we have made it quite plain that we could not regard decolonisation as meaning the handing over of a people against their wishes to another Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an absolutely firm assurance that the Government will not add the betrayal of the people of Gibraltar to the other shames which they have brought upon this country in recent weeks?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was glad to get that off his chest. From our point of view, the position stays as I made it plain to the U.N. Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) why six weeks elapsed from the publication on 17th July of Turkish Decree No. 6/8454 before he was aware that he would have to apply for exemption for British hauliers from the levies imposed by this decree; and if he is aware that his delay in obtaining exemption has placed British hauliers at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in countries whose Governments have already obtained exemption;

(2) by what date he hopes to obtain exemption for British hauliers from the levies imposed by Turkish Decree No. 6/8454; by what date he hopes to obtain the agreement of the Turkish Government to refund the levies already paid; and by what date the refunds will be made.

I will, with permission, answer these Questions together.

Shortly after publication of the Turkish Decree No. 6/8458 a translation was sent to London by our Ankara Embassy. The Ministry of Transport then wrote to the Turkish authorities on 16th August and in the light of their reply a formal case for exemption was prepared and put to the Turkish Government at the end of September. Since the Decree was published without prior notice and the matter is a very complex one, I do not consider that our approach was unduly delayed. Negotiations are now in progress to secure exemption on a reciprocal and retrospective basis. I cannot say when these will be concluded.

I will, with permission, ask both my supplementary questions together. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituent is having to pay £300 per trip every time a vehicle goes through, and that it is £340 with effect from today? Is he aware that no firm can stand this cost? In the event that he is unsuccessful in obtaining the agreement, what plans has he to pay the refund of the levies already paid? Is he prepared to pay compensation?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the negotiations now in progress show good hope that we shall succeed in securing exemption on both a reciprocal and a retrospective basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the present level of his Department's commercial representation in South America.

Yes, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, particularly in view of the events of the past 48 hours, it becomes more urgent than ever to get top-flight salesmen on our commercial staffs?

We are making a special effort in Latin America on the trade side. Indeed, throughout the world, promotion of exports is a priority of diplomatic staff. However, I stress again, as I did earlier, that it is not the job of the commercial staff of embassies actually to sell the goods. The selling must be done by the manufacturers concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to the British representative on Her Majesty's Government's policy at the World Health Organisation meeting at Brazzaville to the resolution denying aid to Portugal's overseas territories.

The United Kingdom delegate was the Minister of Health of Swaziland. We are opposed to the introduction of political issues into the proceedings of technical United Nations meetings. The Minister was therefore instructed not to take part in such debates and accordingly abstained from voting on a resolution which supported a 1966 resolution of the World Health Assembly suspending technical assistance to Portugal.

Is not the introduction of ideological feuds into these specialised agencies to be deplored? Is not this case particularly unfortunate, since the W.H.O. has expressed its admiration of Portugal's work in Africa against leprosy and sleeping sickness?

It was because we thought it undesirable to have political debates in technical conferences designed to help the people in the region concerned that we instructed our delegate not to take part in those proceedings.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in his discussions about Great Britain's entry into the European Common Market, he will make it an absolute condition that the coloured immigrants settled here will be entitled freely to live in any of the Common Market countries, no matter how numerous they become in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Why not? In view of the fact that there are a million coloured immigrants here already, will the right hon. Gentleman not press that there should be as little anti-racialism in Europe as there is in this country? Why not protect them?

The hon. Gentleman has entirely misinterpreted the policy of the Community regarding the free movement of labour. It is not anti-racial in character, as he suggests. The right of free movement depends not on residence or previous employment but on nationality. There is, of course, a number of immigrants in this country who are already United Kingdom citizens or who have a sufficient residence to become citizens, and in this case they would then have the right of free movement throughout the Community. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went into this important question—I agree that it is an important question—in the debate in May.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of Great Britain's support for the agreement banning nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, he will, either through the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or through the talks at Geneva, ask the United States Government not to proceed with building an anti-ballistic missile system, which would amongst other objections require atmospheric tests.

The United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McNamara, has stated publicly that the anti-ballistic missile system will not require atmospheric nuclear tests.

How is it credible that one can test an anti-ballistic missile system without an atomic explosion in the atmosphere? It just does not add up.

I hope that my hon. Friend is wrong in his assessment that it will be necessary for either the United States or the Soviet Union Governments, as part of their anti-ballistic development, to break the partial test ban treaty to which both are signatories. I do not accept easily that one's allies, in a matter of this kind, will behave in that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, following the investigation into the pro-Nazi past of General Schnez, he will oppose his appointment as Chief of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces in Central Europe, where the 23 divisions and 200 aircraft under his control would include British troops.

General Schnez has not been nominated for this post.

In that case, I am only too delighted to withdraw my Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further information he has been able to obtain about the health of Mr. Gerald Brooke; if he is satisfied that there is reasonable access to Mr. Brooke by British officials in the Soviet Union; and if he will make a statement.

We have asked the Soviet authorities urgently to let us have a comprehensive report on Mr. Brooke's health. In addition we are continuing our representations to the Soviet authorities for another visit by Mrs. Brooke as well as for a consular visit.

Would it not be useful if, in addition to making representations about this case to the Soviet Government, the British Government also took some practical steps to demonstrate their disapproval? How many members of the British Cabinet were invited by the Soviet Ambassador to the reception which he recently gave to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Revolution—