I beg to present a Petition from Sir William Arthur Harvey Druitt, Her Majesty's Procurator-General and Treasury Solicitor, on behalf of the Tribunal directed to investigate the accident which occurred at Hixon Level Crossing, Staffordshire, on 6th January last. The Petition stales that reference is desired to be made al the investigation to the Report made by the Committee to which the British Transport Commission Bill was referred in 1957, to the minutes of evidence taken before that Committee and to the OFFICIAL REPORT for 30th May, 1963, and 1st February, 1968.

"Wherefore, your Petitioner prays that your Honourable House will be graciously pleased to give leave to the proper Officers of the House to attend the said formal investigation and to produce the said report and minutes of evidence and the relevant numbers of the said Official Report of your Honourable House. And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray…"

I beg to move, That leave be given to the proper Officers of this House to attend and produce the said documents accordingly.

On a point of order. I do not wish to delay the House now, Mr. Speaker, but might I have your permission to raise a point of order on this matter at the end of Question Time?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why his Department signed 65 additional leases for property in Brussels last year.

Forty-eight of these properties were hired for the staff of our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation delegation shortly before the Organisation's headquarters moved to Brussels. An equivalent number of hirings have been given up in Paris and the rents of these are therefore an offsetting saving.

Is it not a fact that the Government are now spending more than £200,000 a year for rent for accommodation in Brussels? What inquiries were made by the Foreign Office to see that all this accommodation was being properly used before these additional hirings were acquired? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no further hirings in 1968?

I do not know about that, but my hon. Friend clearly wrote his supplementary question before he heard my reply. The extra hirings which we are taking in Brussels are, for the most part, to replace the ones which we previously had in Paris.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the cost to public funds in terms of money and manpower of Great Britain's share in guarding Rudolph Hess; and what is his policy regarding the continuation of this obligation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has received from the Soviet Government in answer to his approach to them about the release of Rudolf Hess from Spandau Prison.

I regret to say that the Soviet Government have refused to agree to the release of Rudolf Hess from Spandau.

Is it not time that, in conjunction with our American and French allies, we stopped paying this price for Soviet vindictiveness and released an old gentleman who is far beyond doing any harm to anyone?

Without necessarily following the hon. Member in his precise terminology I entirely agree that for practical and humanitarian reasons it would be better that Hess should be released, but I do not think that it can be done in the way the hon. Member suggests.

Apart from the question of expense, does it not seem unjustifiable that Hess should now be suffering solitary confinement, to which he was never condemned?

As I have said, it would be better if he were let out. He has been locked up now for 25 years, which is long enough.

Considering that Hess came to us and surrendered himself to try to make peace, would not that £6,000 be better spent by arranging for his escape?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what authority the British Embassy in Saigon acted as an intermediary between the Governments of South Vietnam and the United States of America after the banning of the Council of Elders by the South Vietnamese Government in December, 1965.

I am not aware of any such event in December, 1965.

Was it not the case that the American Ambassador, Mr. Maxwell Taylor, denounced the South Vietnamese action at the time and that the British Ambassador had to intervene to restore relations?

I rather get the impression that the hon. Member is thinking of events that happened at the end of 1964, in which there was a short period of misunderstanding between the Americans and the South Vietnamese. The British Ambassador—as, of course, he always would—did his best to clear this up. It was cleared up in a very short time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take further action to bring an end to the Vietnam war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now take further steps towards a peaceful resolution of the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take a new initiative to secure a negotiated settlement to the war in Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the latest developments in Vietnam, he will now take further steps to bring about a peace settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further proposals he has for ending the war in Vietnam.

We are in constant contact with the Governments concerned in the Vietnam conflict in an unceasing effort to promote an early settlement.

Since talks could begin the moment the Americans unconditionally stop their bombing of North Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend support the position now taken up by the Secretary-General of the United Nations? When will the British Government tell the Americans that they can no more win the war against the Vietcong than the French could win against the Vietminh?

I respect the military judgment of my hon. Friend in the latter part of his Question. On the first part, it is equally clear that talks could begin the moment Hanoi made it plain that they were ready to go to the table. We could go on for ever asking who is to start first. What I want to try to do— and what a lot of other people want to do; and I invite my hon. Friend to join with us—is to get them both ready to go at the same time. At the moment it is Hanoi that is holding back.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House a little more about the attitude of North Vietnam towards the possibility of talks? For example, what is their current attitude towards the San Antonio formula and what conditions are they laying down as preconditions to joining in such talks?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are many different indications and that one of the difficulties of attempting to discuss this matter openly by way of Question and Answer session is that one is making a subjective judgment all the time about which expression of view is really the one of the Hanoi Government. I have recently seen one in which they appeared to reject the San Antonio formula. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that this may not necessarily be the position. I have discussed this topic not only with the Governments concerned but also recently with U Thant. I cannot say to the House that I have any clear evidence that Hanoi is ready to come to the table, but, on the other hand, I do not believe that one should rule it out as a possibility. I suggest, therefore, that the best thing that I can do is continue to press through all the channels open to me.

In view of the rising tide of suffering and savagery in Vietnam, for which both sides are responsible, cannot the right hon. Gentleman himself try a further personal initiative to bring this appalling war to an end?

I do not think that any personal, public initiative at this moment would help very much. However, that does not mean that I am not taking initiatives and am not in contact with others who are also in a position to help. I shall continue to do that, but I think that, at this time, it would be wrong to identify them. I agree about the increasing savagery of this war. One of the things that moves one most is the fact that it is bound to go on increasing on both sides. There has been a good deal of recognition of this and a number of us are doing all that we can to arrange a situation in which the two sides can get to the table.

Are not both sides now further from peace talks than they have ever been before? As one of America's friends, would not one of the best things that we could do be for us to concentrate on trying to bring home to her how tragically and hopelessly confused her present Vietnam policy has now become?

I do not agree that both sides are further from talking now than they have ever been before. Indeed, that may turn out to be very wide of the mark. I suggest that it would be better if we stopped identifying ourselves as either America's friends or Vietnam's friends and instead identified ourselves as the friends of peace who want to get both sides to the table.

If my right hon. Friend says, as he just said, that he would not rule out the possibility of U Thant's policy being operated, why not back it, since the wisdom of that policy could be tested within a matter of days?

I am sorry if my hon. Friend misunderstood me because I did not even say that. As my hon. Friend knows, the difference between what U Thant has said and what I have said is that he has identified one of the four points as something that should happen all by itself, and he says that he believes that, if it happened, something would then follow. I am bound to say that in my recent talks with him I was given no more basis than in others I have had for believing that this is necessarily so. I therefore remain with the view that the four points I have outlined on many occasions, taken together, provide a package deal which would justify the talks starting.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what he said about not identifying ourselves with any of the countries concerned in this war? Has he no feeling of solidarity for our fellow subjects in Australia and New Zealand?

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I was making the point that the feeling of most of us at the moment must be for the suffering of innocent people in Vietnam, whether North or South, and the casualties being suffered by all of those who are fighting, regardless of from where they come. The best thing we can do is not to raise partisan banners but to try to get the two sides to the peace table. However, I am prepared to go on to say, as I have said many times before, that the major responsibility now for holding this up rests with Hanoi.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to reiterate clearly the fact that it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that to dissociate ourselves from the United States at this time would make the cause of peace more, rather than less, difficult?

That is very firmly our view. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said time and again that if we thought that such a step would bring peace nearer, we would take it. However, I do not believe that it would. I believe that it would lose us influence where we have it and would gain us none where we have not got it. I believe that the line we are taking now is the right one in the interest of trying to bring this conflict to a halt.

Is not my right hon. Friend trying to face two ways at the same time? If we are genuinely trying to be the arbiter and neutral in this vulgar war, should not we dissociate ourselves from one of the belligerents and say that the proposal of U Thant should at least be put to the test?

I suggest that it is my hon. Friend who is trying to face both ways at once. If my fellow co-Chairman would cease his operations in support of one of the belligerents—or even if he did not do that but joined with me in reconvening the Geneva Conference—we could make progress this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, whether he will seek to have observers placed on the Vietnam-Cambodia frontier to ensure that the neutrality of Cambodia may be observed during current military operations in Vietnam.

I regard the preservation of Cambodia's neutrality as vitally important. So far as Cambodia's frontier with Vietnam is concerned, we have long held that the best way to ensure this neutrality would be by expanding the activities of the International Control Commission as the Cambodian Government have requested. The Commission is seized of this matter and consideration lies there at the moment.

What practical steps have Her Majesty's Government taken as co-Chairman to try to safeguard Cambodian neutarilty, other than giving lip service to the request of the Cambodian Government?

It is not a question of giving lip-service; we have made it clear by our declaration what our views are. So far our other co-Chairman has been unwilling to join with us in a proposal to extend the work of the International Control Commission. Nevertheless, the Commission itself is competent to do this. We have drawn its attention to it and various efforts to help have been made, and we hope that it will take action.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that large numbers of North Vietnamese regular troops are stationed in Cambodia? In fact, North Vietnam is using Cambodia as a base for its aggression against South Vietnam.

I think it would be better if I kept out of that. I take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Has there been any direct approach from the Cambodian Government to Her Majesty's Government on the question of the Commission?

The Cambodian Government would like to see the activities of the Commission extended. Cambodia has a very long and mountainous frontier—as my hon. Friend knows more personally than I do—and the ways by which it could be supervised would require mobile forces. These are available, and we should like to see them used.

Is it true that the Russian and Polish members of the Commission are refusing to allow the arrival of better equipment to make these forces available?

It is better if I simply say that the matter rests at the moment with the Commission, which is empowered to take action, if it will.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in relation to the Security Council's resolution of 25th January concerning the illegal trial of 37 South-West Africans.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my replies to my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) and Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 19th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 8.]

Is it not the case that the Security Council Resolution called upon all member States to exert their influence in order to induce South Africa to comply with the provisions of the Council's Resolution? What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to exert his influence in order to induce South African compliance?

This is precisely what Her Majesty's Government have done. On instructions our Ambassador in South Africa conveyed to the South African Government our strong feelings on this question of retrospective legislation, especially any carrying the death penalty. We also made sure that an observer was present at the trial, from 26th January to the end of the trial. Finally, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon made a very good speech—a strong speech—at the United Nations, reasserting Her Majesty's Government's abhorrence of this kind of behaviour.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why a self-confessed terrorist, caught armed, should not be sentenced to imprisonment?

Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly condemned terror- ism in every form. They equally condemn the terrorist Act under which this trial was held.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to propose to the General Assembly of the United Nations that the right of conscientious objection be universally recognised by member nations.

No, Sir. We looked into this recently and concluded that there was little common ground for United Nations action. The Council of Europe has also come to a similar conclusion in relation to its members.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that since this country recognises real conscientious objection, it would be right and proper for us to endeavour to extend that recognition generally?

We have taken part in discussions both in the Council of Europe and in the United Nations with a view to expanding liberal and humane policies in this aspect of human rights but, as I have said, detailed discussions in the Council of Europe, for instance, have yielded the position that there is so little common ground that, as of now, it would not seem to be a fruitful point for us to take up in the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the recent resolution on Greece passed by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure effective action by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to restore full political and other human rights in Greece.

The resolution and recommendation passed by the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe will be considered by the Committee of Ministers shortly. Our attitude will of course reflect our policy of using all our influence towards an early return to democracy and respect for human rights.

In view of Amnesty's report of the horrifying tortures carried out on political prisoners by the military régime, will my hon. Friend refer the whole matter of torturing to the International Committee of the Red Cross? Can he comment on the disgraceful expulsion of Mr. Leslie Finer from Greece?

There are Questions about Mr. Leslie Finer later on the Order Paper. On the first part of the supplementary question, I agree that all of us have been shocked by Amnesty's report about the maltreatment of political prisoners, and certainly the possibility of raising the matter with the International Committee of the Red Cross is in our minds.

Order. It is not in order to anticipate other hon. Members' Questions.

Does the Minister think that the best way to persuade a proud, independent State and an ally in N.A.T.O. to return to democracy is by giving that State a time limit and threatening it with expulsion from the Council of Europe?

It is obviously a matter of judgment how best to get Greece moving in the direction that we all want to see. I think that the Government have made it clear that there is a balance here which must be preserved. But this does not prevent our condemning behaviour which we think abhorrent, and saying that we want to see a movement to democracy in Greece as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now announce the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the Agency's next financial year.

Her Majesty's Government hope shortly to be in a posi- tion to make a statement on the precise level of their contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the current year.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to ensure that the contribution is maintained at levels comparable with previous years, particularly in view of the fact that the current living conditions of Arab refugees are a standing incitement to the Arab peoples to adopt extremist policies?

I hope to make an early announcement of the amounts that will be made available. I am sure that we shall again be making a substantial contribution to U.N.R.W.A. this year. I join my hon. Friend in his remarks about the condition of the refugees, and the whole House will feel that whatever sum we are able to make available for this purpose will be most worth while.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when diplomatic relations are to be restored between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Algeria.

We are in touch with the Algerian Government. There have been further discussions recently and I am hopeful that we can resume diplomatic relations in the near future.

Will my right hon. Friend make every effort to achieve success in these discussions, since he could then represent to the Algerian Government the fact that oil is reaching the illegal regime in Rhodesia via Total, the French company?

Without commenting on my hon. Friend's assertion, which I have no grounds for supporting or denying, I must make it clear to the House that if we are in diplomatic relations with the Algerian Government we shall be in a better position to exert influence in a number of areas in which we are interested, including this one.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any further news about the British aircraft, in respect of which questions were put to his hon. Friend the other day? Can he also say what contribution this country is making in various ways to the economy of Algeria?

I do not think that I can answer the second part of that question without notice. To answer the first part, I have reason to believe that, as we make progress with the resumption of diplomatic relations and as our relations with the Algerians improve, the release of the aircraft will be a much more definite possibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the difficulties and complications delaying his decision regarding permission for British subjects to wear foreign decorations approved by him; whether he is aware that an early decision was promised to the hon. Members for Liverpool, Wavertre (Mr. Tilney), Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) and Shrewsbury, on 19th July, 1967; and what he now proposes to do.

I am happy to tell the House that it has now been agreed in principle that the Foreign Orders Regulations should be amended to provide for the grant of unrestricted permission to United Kingdom private citizens in all cases to wear awards which, in accordance with the Regulations, they have been permitted to accept. I hope to arrange for a notice to appear shortly in the London Gazette announcing this change.

In thanking the hon. Gentleman for the part he has played in this, may I assure him that, while it has been a long time coming, it has been well worth it in the end?

On the contrary, this is the moment to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the successful outcome of his campaign.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs by what means in the past he has asserted the right of free and innocent passage through the Straits of Tiran on behalf of British shipping; and how he proposes to assert this right in the future.

The maintenance of the right of free passage through international waterways is primarily a task for the international community as a whole, working through the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government have consistently affirmed this right, and took particular care to ensure that the Security Council Resolution on the Middle East, which we tabled and which was unanimously adopted on 22nd November, explicitly affirmed

"…the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area".

Contrary to what the Foreign Secretary said, is not the task of protecting British shipping primarily the task of Her Majesty's Government?

I fear that the hon. Gentleman is living in a bygone age. The maintenance of the right of free passage through international waterways is nowadays, and must be, primarily a task for the international community. There are more maritime Powers than we alone and it is for the international community to look after these rights; and that is why we have worked, and will continue to work, through the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Resolution of the United Nations General Assembly dated 21st November, 1967, on the report of the Fourth Committee concerning territories under Portuguese administration.

Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly made it clear that they regret Portugal's unwillingness to admit that the principle of self-determination is applicable to her overseas territories. We voted against the resolution because it contained several unacceptable features.

Is it not the case that both the I.L.O. and the W.H.O. made favourable reports on the administration of Portuguese provinces in Africa? Will the Government suggest to the U.N. Secretary-General that he should accept the latest invitation by the Portuguese Government to visit these territories to see conditions for himself?

There may be such reports but the resolution was directed to the shortcomings of Portugal in regard to a specific but fundamental fact, namely, unwillingness to admit the principle of self-determination as applicable to her overseas territories. We must insist that this is accepted by all countries. Although we would have wished to have voted for this resolution and were prevented from doing so only by the fact that there were introduced into it unacceptable references and provisions, we stand very firmly behind the views of the United Nations on this matter.

Could we not suggest at the United Nations that referendum be held in these territorie: similar to the one we held in Gibraltar to ascertain what the wishes of the inhabitants are?

That is an interesting suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent in the negotiating of a draft Non-Proliferation Treaty the right of European nations collectively to develop and possess nuclear weapons systems for combined defence has been safeguarded; what new restrictions it is proposed to place on the international exchange of information and assistance in the exploitation of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy; and what is the intended position of Euratom vis-à-vis the International Atomic Energy Authority.

I apologise for the length of this Answer, but after all this is an important Question. The non-nuclear weapon States would be prevented by the Non-Proliferation Treaty from manufacturing nuclear weapons or receiving the transfer of such weapons or of control over them. Far from inhibiting the full and free interchange of civil nuclear information and assistance, the Treaty expressly endorses the right to such interchange. The Safeguards Article III of the Treaty would permit the International Atomic Energy Agency and the parties to the Treaty to negotiate agreements that take full account of the fact that some of the parties are members of a regional organisation that has its own safeguards system.

Does the latter part of that Answer mean that under the Treaty there would be no obstacle to a united European defence system developing its own nuclear weapons system?

That is quite a different question either from the last part of the Question on the Order Paper or from my reply. I was dealing with a safeguards system which obviously raises the question in Europe of safeguards for Euratom. That is a different question.

Is it not time, in addition to the long-performed ritual dances at Geneva and other places, that the Government should be seen to be taking a new initiative in discussions for disarmament? What has happened to the Minister for Disarmament?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with special responsibility for disarmament is away this day engaged on a very relevant issue. We are still, of course, taking initiatives. The fact that this Treaty has so nearly reached a successful outcome and so nearly reached the point where nations can be invited to sign it, owes a great deal to what first my noble Friend and now my right hon. Friend have contributed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what precise purposes have the public funds allocated to Britain in Europe Limited, of Chandos House, S.W.1, been increased to £7,500 this year and if he will make a statement.

The grant-in-aid to "Britain in Europe" is to assist that organisation in promoting a proper understanding in Europe of the British point of view on European affairs.

Now that the Government's attempts to get into the Common Market appear to have collapsed—as a minority of hon. Members forecast they would—why does money still go on being given to this promotional organisation? Was a similar amount of money given to the Anti-Common Market League so that we could have the great debate promised by the Prime Minister, or to N.A.F.T.A.

That question seemed to get a lot of miss-shots into one barrel, if I may put it that way. [Laughter.] Perhaps they were blunt dum-dum bullets. I will work it out and do it better next time. Our position is that there is no reason at all for assuming that, what the hon. Member was kind enough to say he applauded, the effort to join a wider Common Market has lapsed. It has not. It remains and a great deal is still going on. This organisation and others—this is not the only one, a list was given by the Under-Secretary a little time ago in answer to a Question in the House—does more than just put forward our view about the kind of economic or political Europe we think ought to emerge, but also ensures that the British view about international affairs is made clear in Europe. I think that the limited amount of money which we grant to it is more than justified as there is great need for this work to be done.

Is it not quite improper for the Government to hand out public funds to these sectional propaganda organisations at a time when we are having to economise on the National Health Service and all kinds of things? Will the Foreign Secretary do his obvious duty and terminate this waste of public money?

I note my right hon. Friend's conversion to that view which is not one which he used to hold.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on ships detained in the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he now expects the British ships trapped in the Bitter Lakes to be freed.

I am continuing to do all I can to get the arrangements for the release of the ships restarted.

Is the loan which is being negotiated with Egypt at the moment contingent on the right of the nations which own ships trapped in the Suez Canal to get them out? What are the terms of that loan?

There is no such thing as a loan in that sense. Question No. 35 specifically deals with that subject.

What has happened to the optimism which the right hon. Gentleman showed a few weeks ago on this topic? As he now appears to rely on the international maritime community for protection of British shipping, will he organise it to put sufficient pressure on Egypt to secure the release of ships unlawfully imprisoned in the Canal for nine months?

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks more closely he will realise that there is more than one source of responsibility for the fact that the previous arrangement we got started came to a stop. I am in touch with both Governments concerned and with the international agency and the other maritime nations concerned and of course with Mr. Jarring's mission. We are doing the utmost we can to get these arrangements restarted. Rather than trying to apportion blame or showing prejudice, I think that is the right thing to do.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the United Nations mission is itself in touch with the Israelis and the U.A.R., bearing in mind that the original incident may have been caused by a misunderstanding? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Yes. My hon. Friend has a great deal of knowledge about this. He may be a great deal nearer right than those who take the opportunity to jeer. I can give an assurance that the Jarring mission is in touch with both sides, as we are, but I think that at this stage in our work the less I am asked to comment in public the better.

What help is Soviet Russia giving in this matter? Is the naval presence of Russian ships in the Mediterranean helping the right hon. Gentleman to free British ships locked up in the Suez Canal?

I do not at first sight see the connection between that question and the Question on the Order Paper, but if the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question of course I will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government only to seek the reopening of the Suez Canal on conditions which enable the ships of all nations to make use of it.

Yes, Sir. In Her Majesty's Government's view any settlement of the problems of the Middle East must include respect for the right of free and innocent passage through international waterways for the ships of all nations.

While I welcome that Answer, may I ask my right hon. Friend to tell the House whether he has made it clear to the United Arab Republic that any friendly pressure put on Israel to reach a quick agreement whereby the Suez Canal is promptly reopened must necessarily include the concession by the United Arab Republic that it shall then be open to the shipping of Israel as well as that of other nations?

Our view has repeatedly been made clear, not least importantly in the resolutions which we carried unanimously through the United Nations. As to what concessions are made by whom at any stage in the solution of the various problems that go together to make up the Middle Eastern problem, I think it is probably better to leave that in the present state of affairs to the Jarring mission and the negotiations that it is having now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so far as the British maritime position is concerned I do not think he is getting on very well for Great Britain? Will he get on a little bit better for Great Britain please?

I never had much hope that the hon. Lady would ever feel other- wise. But she might like to know that in regard to the Straits of Tiran we are getting along exceedingly well now. So far as the Suez Canal is concerned, as I have already said negotiations are proceeding and everything that can be done is being done. She may also be relieved to know that as a result of the closing of the Canal large tankers are being built—many of them—at the moment, which, of course, will mean that if the Canal stays closed much longer the need for it will be a good deal less. I have no doubt that the United Arab Republic has this thought in its mind.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when we are likely to get our ships out of the Suez Canal—in 1969, or will it be 1970?

With great respect, that is a question which the hon. and learned Gentleman must realise I cannot answer. I shall get the vessels out as soon as I possibly can. There are 15 ships in the Canal, so other people are also concerned with this. Indeed, there are a lot of other interests in it. We shall all get them out as soon as we can. Meantime, it may help the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that the crews are being well taken care of, that replacements are occurring as required, that there are no problems any longer about provisioning them, and that I have just received from them my Great Bitter Lakes tie as a member of the club.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has received from the Benelux Governments; and what action he intends to take on the proposed Benelux plan to link Great Britain with the European Economic Community.

The Benelux proposals for closer integration in Europe were formally transmitted to Her Majesty's Government on the 19th January. We have accepted these proposals and we are in close touch with the other Governments concerned about the next steps.

Because of the plethora of plans, are we not in danger of falling between three stools? Would not the best plan for the Government be to call an early conference of interested nations to discuss details of the Benelux proposals?

The Benelux proposals and the much more recent Italian memorandum, which I had only over the weekend and which seems in many ways to reinforce and go along with those proposals, will be discussed at meetings which are to be held in the very near future. The Franco-German declaration is exceedingly vague and I am not clear how significant in all this it is, but we are ready to look at proposals made in each as soon as we receive them. Contrary to the hon. Gentleman, I think the way in which things are moving offers hopes which will lead to steps which in turn will lead to a wider membership of a more integrated Community.

Will my right hon. Friend take care in these consultations not in any way to attempt to drive a wedge between France and her partners in the European Community, and will he also bear in mind that the Franco-German entente is one of the most hopeful developments in Europe since the war?

I have no interest whatever in trying to divide France from her partners or France from Germany or the other way round. There would be no point in trying to join a widened European Community if we had succeeded in destroying the Community first. It is no part of our policy to do that. On the other hand, we must pursue our objectives in what we regard as our interests, and others must be as clear about our interests as we are about theirs.

As the Franco-German proposals could be of very great significance, would the right hon. Gentleman take positive steps to ensure that clarification is available to Her Majesty's Government as soon as possible?

I find it very hard to know on what the right hon. Gentleman can base his first assertion, because there are no proposals. There was a declaration but there are no proposals. However, I have certainly been in touch with the Dutch—the Dutch Prime Minister and Foreign Minister were here last week—with my German colleague and with the French and the Italians, and have made perfectly plain that we should like to see what this means in terms of proposals so that we can see whether they are significant and whether we can help with them and turn them into realities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consideration he has given to the possibility of temporary association under Article 238 of the Treaty of Rome between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

We have, of course, looked into the possibility of some form of association with the European Economic Community. But I have consistently made clear the difficulties which would attach to any form of relationship with the Community which fell short of full membership.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer will give some disappointment to friends of this country inside both the E.E.C. and the European Free Trade Association? Further, is he aware that what is being suggested is simply that he look at the possibility of a temporary form of association, during which period Britain and the E.E.C. could harmonise their policies in a variety of fields, with a view, in the end, to the aim which he desires?

I hope that I have not given disappointment to any of my friends; I often do to others. On the question of association, my hon. Friend must, with respect, take into account that any form of arrangement which left us with obligations but no rights or powers to influence what happens, and then the need to enter at some later date on terms which we had not ourselves influenced, would seem to me to have nothing to commend it to the country at all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, if the French and German Governments were to come forward with proposals for a free trade solution embracing the European Community and the countries which apply for membership, Her Majesty's Government would welcome such a proposition?

Had we not better wait to see whether they come forward with anything, and, if they do, what it is?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations took place with Governments in the Persian Gulf about their offer to contribute towards the cost of stationing British troops there; and why the offer has been declined.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will accept the official offer received from the Rulers of State in the Persian Gulf to defray the cost of leaving British forces in the area after 1971.

I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 14th February and which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on the same day.—[Vol. 758, c. 1346–7 and c. 368–9.]

Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point with which his right hon. Friend did not deal on those occasions? The Secretary of State for Defence referred on 22nd January to the need to establish an alternative basis for stability in the Persian Gulf, as, indeed, in South-East Asia. What are the Government's ideas about how that alternative basis for stability should be established?

I think that the Question was directed towards whether consultations had taken place between us and the Rulers and why their offers had been declined. I think that what the hon. Gentleman now raises is another matter. However, on the question of consulting the Rulers, after carefully considering the offers we told the Rulers that they were not acceptable to us, and the reasons for this were fully explained to them. As a result of that discussion the decision was unchanged, and it still stands.

Would not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that our forces are a stabilising influence in the Gulf, that our only reason for withdrawing them is financial, and that if the beneficiaries pay, that reason falls to the ground? Why are we refusing from the Trucial States the very thing we are actively seeking from the West Germans?

It is not the position that only our military presence has up to the present formed a guarantee of stability in the Gulf. There is a good deal to be said for enabling these States to achieve a successor system of security from our own resources, possibly with guidance and help from their friends. As to the question of the cost, this is a large and complicated question, and I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer to certain hon. Members who raised the subject on 14th February given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence who said that he would consider making available further information on this subject when the statement on the Defence Estimates comes to be debated.

But as no effective consultations took place with the Rulers before their offer was rejected, cannot the hon. Gentleman now give some indication of the economic calculation upon which this very important decision was based?

As I have said, it is a very large and complicated question. The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members raised it on 14th February, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, quite rightly, said that he would consider making further information on this very complicated matter available to the House when the statement on the Defence Estimates came to be debated.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the offer by the Rulers to pay for British troops carries with it a very dangerous condition indeed, namely, the power to deploy British troops to the satisfaction of the Rulers, and that this is a condition which this country could never afford to accept?

I hope that nothing will be said to make less possible the successful outcome of the very encouraging developments in the Gulf these days where the Rulers are coming together and talking constructively of plans for co-operation and even for unification. As to the question of control, this would, of course, arise if an offer of this sort were accepted, and it was one of the factors which decided Her Majesty's Government not to accept the offer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding their rôle in the United Nations and its specialised agencies following Great Britain's military withdrawal from east of Suez.

Yes, Sir. In my right hon. Friend's speech to the General Assembly on 26th September, 1967, a copy of which is in the Library of the House, he reiterated the firm belief of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations and in all it stands for. This belief, and our determination to work in the most practical way for the fulfilment of its ideals and aims, are in no way affected by the decision to accelerate the withdrawal of troops stationed east of Suez. We strongly support the peacekeeping activities of the United Nations, and shall continue to play an active part in them.

Will my hon. Friend agree that the logic of recent defence and foreign affairs policy decisions is that we are more rather than less dependent on the international community for our own economic well-being, and must we not, therefore, now give the highest possible priority to working through international institutions in terms of practical foreign policy?

It has been and will continue to be Her Majesty's Government's policy to support the United Nations fully and, in particular, through its specialised agencies, including the peacekeeping operations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the work of the United Nations special representative in the Middle East, and, in particular, the progress that is being made to secure the reopening of the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

I explained the situation to the House on 24th January. I do not think that any further statement on my part would be helpful or appropriate at present while the mission of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Middle East is in progress.

Are the Government considering further action towards a settlement in order to supplement the work of the United Nations representative Mr. Jarring and also to be taken when he has exhausted all the possibilities which are open to him?

I have no reason to think that such a moment will arise. We are at the moment working closely with him, closely with the United Nations, closely with the parties directly concerned and with our friends and allies in order to make a success of the mission. I believe this to be the likeliest way in which we shall reach a solution of this very complex problem. I am sure that we shall continue to work as we are at the moment.

Bearing in mind the United Nations resolution on Jerusalem and our own resolution of 22nd November, what representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Israeli Government concerning their tightening economic and political grip on Old Jerusalem?

We are in touch with both the Israeli Government and the Arab Governments about things which are done by any of them which make this a more difficult problem to solve. I do not wish to seek out anyone for public mention here, but my hon. Friend may take it quite certainly that I am in touch with each of them about the need for not making the problem more difficult than it inevitably is.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us think that he is being complacent about this, especially over the Suez Canal? The resolution of the United Nations was passed on 22nd November. What further steps are being taken at the United Nations to raise this question again, in view of the long time it is taking? It is urgent that something be done soon.

It is the impatience which the other side of the House show which led to the original Suez disaster. There is a good deal to be said for patience here. I can think of nothing which would contribute less at this moment than the course which the hon. Gentleman recommends, namely, taking the matter back for public debate in the United Nations. I am sure that the right thing is to try to create a situation in which the Jarring mission can succeed. If I have the hostility of right hon. and hon. Members opposite on this question, I am very glad to have it.

Is not my right hon. Friend correct and wise in his statement that a negotiated settlement between the United Arab Republic and the State of Israel is much more likely to succeed than intervention by the United Nations? Is it not possible that the grant of a loan to the United Arab Republic, with certain conditions relating to passage through the Suez Canal, an assurance to the State of Israel of security in the future and possible negotiations between the two parties, would be likely to provide a solution?

One of the things which the Jarring mission may well succeed in doing—I hope that it will—is to lead towards a situation in which the various parties concerned—there are more than two—can come to direct negotiations; but that will come by stages, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that the right thing to do is to encourage it to come there. As to the security of Israel, I do not regard that as linked with any financial arrangements involving the United Arab Republic. As I said earlier, the question of a loan does not really arise. If I can reach Question No. 35, I shall answer it and state what the position is.

As the United Nations resolution provides the best hope of a settlement in the Middle East, is the right hon. Gentleman in close touch with the United States Government to see that they use some influence to try to bring about a settlement on both sides?

Very much so. The contact between us is very close, both at Foreign Secretary level and at Ambassador level in New York. We are working closely together on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding recognition of the sovereignty of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania.

Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Baltic States have been de facto absorbed into the Soviet Union, but have not recognised this de jure.

If we have not accorded de jure recognition to the annexation of these three States by the Soviet Union, how has it been possible to make an agreement with the Soviet Union involving the claims of British nationals against those States?

There is no moral judgment involved in the recognition of reality, and what we were seeking to do in reaching the agreement with the Soviet Union was to help those who have been waiting many years for a settlement of their claims.

In the event of these three countries recovering their sovereignty, will Her Majesty's Government accept the obligation to return to them the assets which we hold on their behalf?

This is not the moment to deal with hypothetical questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he expects to receive the report of the mediator with regard to problems concerning British Honduras outstanding between Guatemala and the United Kingdom.

I cannot say when the report is likely to be received. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman on 5th December, 1967, it is for the mediator to disclose his recommendations when he feels ready to do so.—[Vol. 755, c. 268.]

Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to repeat the earlier assurances given to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and others that, in the event of a constitutional change in the position of British Honduras, the voice of the people will be decisive, not that of the political parties?

This question was very adequately dealt with when it was raised and answered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Our attitude is that we should stand ready to be consulted by the Government of British Honduras about the form of consultation, if necessary, at the time when matters arise from the mediator's report.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the bitter opposition of the Official Opposition, led by Philip Goldson, and of the loyalist and Commonwealth elements in the country? Can he give an assurance on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that the usual forms of consultation will take place—talks at Lancaster House before independence and an election before independence—in the case of this Colony as with all other Colonies?

I can give the assurance that all proper forms of consultation will be followed in this case.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is still a great deal of anxiety on both sides of the House about this? If as a result of the promised consultation of the people after the mediator's report a majority come out against cession to Guatemala, is it the Government's intention to stand by the wishes of the people?

That is not a question that I can give an answer to now. It is a hypothetical question to which it would not be wise to give an answer. The answers which have been given are that we shall have the proper forms of consultation with the lawfully and democratically elected Government of British Honduras when the time comes.

Why cannot the Minister of State answer the question now? Are the Government saying that they want to retain the right to override the views of the majority of the people of this territory?

No, we have not said that at all. What we have said is that it is normal and proper for Her Majesty's Government to consult the lawful and democratically elected Government of British Honduras.

rose—

Order.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.