asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government will ratify the Tokyo Convention, 1963.

As soon as possible. In the United Kingdom the necessary legislation has been passed thanks to the initiative of my honourable Friend and the Tokyo Convention Act comes into force today. There is no provision for applying it to our overseas territories separately, and we shall not ratify it until the appropriate action has been taken for all such territories. Consultations with the Governments of the territories about extension of the provisions ex: the 1967 Act to them are expected to be completed shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have now started discussions with the States of the Persian Gulf about the proposed withdrawal of British Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he is having with the States of the Persian Gulf about British withdrawals and related matters.

We are engaged in discussion with the States concerned about the implications of the decision on withdrawal.

Are the United Kingdom Government still responsible for the foreign affairs and defence of these States and, if so, for how long is this situation expected to last?

The position is that until there is a renegotiation of agreements and treaties, and until we have withdrawn, as we have said we shall do, we shall remain responsible for those two matters.

Will the Minister give an assurance that during the transitional period he will do all in his power to maintain the Trucial Oman Scouts, providing them with adequate finance and support from this country?

I agree that the T.O.S. are an effective and efficient force for internal security in that area, and we shall do everything possible to see that they continue to be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations have taken place between Her Her Majesty's Government and Argentina about the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations have taken place between the United Kingdom and the Argentine on the future of the Falkland Islands; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had with the Government of the Argentine regarding the future status of the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what negotiations are taking place with the Government of the Argentine concerning the future of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present state of negotiations with the Argentine concerning the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how far the future of the Falkland Islands is under discussion in the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Argentine Government; whether he will give an assurance that there will be no change in the sovereignty of this British territory without the full approval of its inhabitants; what consultations there have been with representative organisations in the Falkland Islands; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the object of the present negotiations between this country and the Argentine Republic concerning the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to his negotiations with the Government of the Argentine on the question of the Falkland Islands.

I have nothing to add to what I said in the House on 27th March about the Anglo-Argentine talks on the Falkland Islands.—[Vol. 761, cols. 1458–67.]

As that statement was somewhat vague, will the right hon. Gentleman now give an assurance that the sovereignty of the Falklands will not be transferred to any other country unless a majority of the islanders favour such a course, and have been given a proper opportunity to express their views?

What I said was not vague at all. I said exactly what the hon. Gentleman has just said, and I repeat it now.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what were the exact intentions of the Argentine Government, and what were their demands?

I think I explained to the House that Argentina raised the question of the transfer of sovereignty. Our object in the talks has been both to preserve the interests of the islanders, and to see that for the future they can live on good terms with their large neighbour.

I hope that I heard the right hon. Gentleman aright. Will he emphasise, with unambiguous clarity, that in this matter we rest on the principle of self-determination for the islanders?

I really have been quite unambiguous about this already. I said in the House that one, though only one, of the conditions in which we could consider a transfer of sovereignty was that it was clear to us that the islanders themselves regarded the conditions as satisfactory.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that part of the difficulty springs from the fact that the negotiations were conducted in secrecy, without the islanders knowing anything at all about them? Will he say whether he envisages steps being taken at an early stage to ascertain the wishes of the islanders, already expressed at the United Nations, by means of a referendum?

That would not arise unless an agreement were reached which was satisfactory in other respects. I trade that clear to the House. If no agreement envisaging transfer of sovereignty at all were reached, this question would not arise, but the wishes of the islanders are an absolute condition. With regard to the secrecy of the talks, I think the hon. Gentleman understands that conversations of this kind are regularly conducted confidentially, and I explained to the House the steps that we had taken to inform the Governor and authorise him to inform the Executive Council.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer this afternoon will bring great relief to the Falkland Islanders, and that we are grateful to him for that?

I am obliged to the hon. Member for that remark. I may fairly say, however, that I have said nothing in the House this afternoon that I did not say earlier.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his refusal to use clear and specific words has caused grave and justifiable disquiet? Is he now saying that there will be no transfer of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with-out the consent of the inhabitants?

I said that a few moments ago. The statement that this has caused grave the disquiet is not correct. Mr. Barton, a member of the Executive Council who has been over here recently, described my statement as very satisfactory.

Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend have no objection if he thought it helpful for there to be a referendum in the Falkland Islands under United Nations supervision to establish what the wishes of the inhabitants are?

I have said that I do not think that this question arises at present—nor should I want to lay down precisely what mechanisms we might adopt in a situation that has not yet arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the British Army of the Rhine offset talks in Bonn.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer this Question and Questions No. 54 and No. 77 at the end of Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of mutual balanced forces reductions in Europe.

These discussions are going forward in the context of the intensified studies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on disarmament and practical measures of arms control.

How soon may we expect a definite proposal—since N.A.T.O. started these discussions four months ago? Secondly, does my right hon. Friend agree that these talks might be started by mutual example rather than by a formal East-West agreement, as the Defence Minister stated on 4th March?

On my hon. Friend's first point, I should like to be able to assure him that I expect early results, but I am afraid that these are extremely detailed and complicated matters, and I would not expect quick results. On the question whether one should start, and not attempt to put the matter on a basis of mutuality, as he knows there have been redeployments of both the United States and British forces in the last year, and so far there has been no corresponding reduction by the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the offer of resignation by Sir Con O'Neill, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he has appointed Mr. Christopher Soames as Ambassador in Paris and accepted the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill at the Foreign Office.

askew ale Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Mr. Christopher Soames was appointed to be British Ambassador in Paris.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Sir Con O'Neill resigned from the Foreign Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has a statement to make about the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why there is a shortage in Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service of persons suitable for appointment to such a post as Her Britannic Majesty's Ambassador to Paris; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he accepted the resignation of Sir Con O'Neill, Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office; and why he appointed Mr. Christopher Soames as Ambassador in Paris.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the reasons for the resignation from the Foreign Service of Sir Con O'Neill; and when such resignation will take effect.

Sir Con O'Neill's reasons for resigning were set out in a personal statement issued, with my predecessor's consent, to the Press. As he then said he will leave the Foreign Office in the middle of April. I share my right hon. Friend's regret that the Diplomatic Service should be losing such an able and devoted officer.

With regard to Question No. 7, I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has no personal responsibility for what happened, but is it not indicative of an unhappy state of affairs in the Foreign Office when a public servant of this high intellectual quality and all but unique knowledge of Europe is lost to the Service at a time of particular difficulty?

No. If we study the terms of Sir Con O'Neill's statement we see that there is no ground for what the right hon. Gentleman has said.

But is not the appointment of a career and professional politician to a post traditionally occupied by a career and professional diplomat calculated to discourage men of the highest calibre from entering the Corps Diplomatique?

This might be true if it were the regular practice, but it is not the regular practice; it is done in certain circumstances, such as I outlined in my Answer.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether Mr. Soames has now definitely severed his connection with the Conservative Party? Is comrade Soames now supposed loyally and patriotically to carry out the duties imposed on him by a Labour Government?

The answer to the second part of that supplementary question is, "Yes, Sir"—and I believe to the first part, too.

As the former Foreign Secretary, whose attitude was no doubt the real cause of Sir Con O'Neill's resignation, has now resigned, will not the right hon. Gentleman invite Sir Con to reconsider his decision, so that we do not lose from the national service such an outstandingly able public servant?

If we want to know the real reason for Sir Con O'Neill's resignation the sensible thing is to consult his own statement, and not the speculations of others. His statement does not bear out what the hon. Member has said.

Will my right hon. Friend continue. vigorous policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) and make it clear that all decisions are made by the Foreign Secretary and are not unduly influenced by the Establishment—in the Foreign Office? On the question of the Paris appointment, as Mr. Soames' appointment will obviously be a popular one in France, was not my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper's bipartisan approach meritorious, especially as Mr. Soames himself is such a partisan person that he probably would not appoint a cook who was not a Conservative?

I am not sure that I follow all of that question, but I have made it clear that I share my predecessor's view of Mr. Soames' suitability for this post. On the first part of the supplementary question, Sir Con O'Neill's statement itself makes it clear that there is no question but that the appointment of an ambassador to a particular post is the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary.

But since this resignation took place on a question of personality rather than of policy, and now that the Foreign Secretary has himself resigned, although it might previously have been a question of one or the other, by now should both have to go?

We have had that supplementary question already, from another hon. Member. The reason given by Sir Con O'Neill for his resignation is not the one that the hon. and learned Member has just suggested. He gave it because hi: was not appointed to a particular post and felt that in all the circumstances the best course for him personally was to leave the Service. I very much regret that decision but that was his decision and the reason for which he took it.

The Foreign Secretary must obviously keep postings of civil servants in his own hands—that almost goes without saying—but is it not undesirable that there should be encounters of such a kind, between Ministers and civil servants, as it is common knowledge took place preceding the retirement of Sir Con O'Neill? Does not this do nothing but damage to a Service with a very high record?

I do not think that there is justification for what the right hon. Gentleman says. I must ask the House to notice what Sir Con O'Neill said, and what he gave as the reasons for his own resignation. He is the best authority on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider the progressive abolition of the Diplomatic Service, and its replacement by a purely consular service, in view of the declining importance of ambassadorial functions and duties.

No, Sir.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that slap in the face. May I suggest to him that our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary might not run into the difficulties that he had with the previous Question if my suggestion were adopted? Secondly, does not he realise that behind the rather exaggerated language of this Question lies a real concern that our Foreign Service should be more geared to commercial activities of a kind that produced the magnificent Rolls Royce coup this weekend, rather than to diplomatic activities, in the traditional sense of the term?

It would be an extreme act to abolish the Diplomatic Service in order to avoid my right hon. Friend's having to answer Questions about appointments to it. As to the second point, I entirely agree that priority in the Diplomatic Service lies in the commercial field. That is our policy. There has been a substantial increase in the amount of commercial work. What I cannot agree is that this can be done without any diplomatic activity to support it. The direct contact that we have through our diplomats, with Heads of Government and civil servants in other countries, has not only political but, in my judgment, commercial value.

In considering the cuts in public expenditure will the Minister undertake to prune some staff, particularly non-diplomatic staff in our embassies? Is he aware that sometimes the proportion between technical supporting staff and diplomatic staff is quite unreasonable?

Without notice I would not be able to go into detail, but obviously, if the hon. Gentleman is concerned with non-diplomatic staff he should address his questions to the Ministers responsible for the people he has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what clarification he has obtained, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, of the official proposals of the North Vietnamese Foreign Minister of 29th December last on conditions for a cessation of military activity in Vietnam.

The North Vietnamese authorities have given no further clarification of their Foreign Minister's speech on 29th December to a Mongolian delegation than was contained in reports of Mr. Trinh's interview with a French journalist on 8th February and various other commentaries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Can he say whether there has been any clarification of how soon talks could begin? In view of the news today, could he say what strength he attaches to this speech by the North Vietnamese Minister?

On the first part of the question, I regret that there has been no clarification. On the latter part, there is another Question on the Order Paper, when I could more properly deal with this.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, he will make proposals to the South and North Vietnamese authorities to reach a settlement without further use of armed force.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, in view of the present rate of civilian casualties on both sides, he will take a further initiative to bring about the end of the war.

As the House knows, we are in constant contact with those concerned with the Vietnam war in the hope of bringing about an early end to the use of force in Vietnam and the opening of productive discussions. With regard to President Johnson's latest request for our help in moving towards peace, I would ask my hon. Friends to await my statement at the end of Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will dissociate Her Majesty's Government from further escalation by the United States Government of the war in Vietnam in response to the intensification of North Vietnamese activity in Saigon and elsewhere in the South.

As my hon. Friend points out, it is the North Vietnamese who have recently intensified the level of military activity in the war. No American reaction of which I am aware can be described as further escalation, and therefore the question of dissociation does not arise.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that my Question has been largely answered by President Johnson's statement earlier today? Will he now make representations to the American Government that they should bomb no targets to the north of the demilitarised zone and thus give the Hanoi Government no excuse for not accepting the American offer?

I agree that my hon. Friend's Question has been somewhat overtaken by events. I ask him to await the statement I shall be making at the end of Questions.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that another massive assault by the Vietcong on cities in South Vietnam would jeopardise this new American initiative?

I should have thought that was self-evident, but I do not think we should start putting forward hypotheses at this juncture.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what visits he proposes this year to countries in Eastern Europe.

On the invitation of the Governments concerned, I shall be visiting Yugoslavia from the 5th to 10th June and Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania in the early part of September.

In view of the current political and economic developments in Eastern European countries, and the enormous potential for British capital goads with consumer know-how being exported, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to take every opportunity during his vi its to open up avenues for British trade in Eastern Europe?

Certainly. On previous visits that I have made to other Eastern European countries I have had this very mach in mind.

When my right hon. Friend visits these countries, in addition to raising matters of trade, would he raise again the important question of establishing a conference to look at the possibility of setting up the foundations of a European peace and security council?

My hon. Friend knows that we believe that a conference on European security would be desirable. It is a matter upon which we have to keep in close touch with our allies.

asked the Secretary of St to for Foreign Affairs what restrictions are placed on the use of the graint-in-aid of £7,500 made to Britain in Europe Limited of Chandos House, S.W.1.

Britain in Europe Limited receives its grant-in-aid to assist in promoting a proper understanding in Europe of the British point of view on European affairs. It can only be used for that purpose.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a suitable arrangement that an organisation such as this receiving a subsidy such as this from the taxpayer, should harbour in its premises a party political organisation, namely, the Labour Into Europe Movement in the same office? Is this very sensible?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not dissent from the view that the grant would otherwise be acceptable, except for the question of the tenancy of the building. I will make inquiries about that, but I am sure that none of the grant that we give for expenditure in Europe is in any way connected with the rent, in the way that he suggests.

Whatever the facts are about this organisation, is it not completely wrong that public money should be used to subsidise private propaganda of this kind? Is not this a most obvious case for a little bit of economy in public money?

As my right hon. Friend will know from the Estimates, a considerable number of bodies receive grants-in-aid from the Government, and have done over a number of years, in order to support their objectives. This is a very practical way of carrying on information services at a time when such services, for reasons of stringency in public expenditure which my right hon. Friend has indicated, are under strain. The arrangement is generally satisfactory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the composition of the respective claims which are the subject of the Agreement on Mutual Financial and Property Claims between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics which has recently been concluded.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on 12th February.—[Vol. 758, c. 269.]

Is the Minister aware that the facts asked for in this Question have been requested on a number of occasions over a long period? Are they not readily available? Why are the Government being so cagey about providing them?

It is not a question of being cagey, but it would be misleading to publish the figures for claims on either side, except in the context of the proposals which we will be submitting to Parliament on the distribution. In isolation these figures would not be a reliable guide of what claimants might expect to receive, since the value of the assets available for distribution and all the claims which will be admitted cannot now be reliably assessed.

Is it not a fact that we have been promised, over and over again, legislation in this Session of Parliament to deal with this matter? When is the Bill to be presented to the House?

Shortly, I hope.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further progress has been made in the 18-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva towards agreement on a non-proliferation Treaty; and if he will make a statement.

The 18-Nation Disarmament Committee submitted its report, together with a revised draft Treaty and proposals for security assurances, to the United Nations on 14th March. A copy of this report has been placed in the Library. It will be considered at a resumed session of the General Assembly which is expected to start on 24th April.

Will the Minister accept that this progress is extremely welcome? Can he say whether assurances given to non-nuclear Powers about some kind of protection by the nuclear Powers will be sufficient to persuade them to adhere to the Treaty? What further initiatives in disarmament have the Government in mind?

I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. On the question of security assurances, these will be set in the framework of the United Nations Security Council and, as far as one can judge, should suffice to give the assurance to non-nuclear Powers for which my hon. Friends asks. As to further proposals for disarmament, we still have a little way to go before we have this Treaty satisfactorily signed. I hope thereafter at Geneva that a whole range of projects, including a comprehensive test ban treaty, for example, can be further pursued.

Since two of the nuclear Powers will have nothing to do with this Treaty, ought not our enthusiasm to be a little restrained?

I am sure that we should have every reason to be more enthusiastic if we had the full support of China and France, which I agree we are unlikely to get.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the Anglo-Spanish talks about Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the talks with Spain; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the breakdown of the talks with Spain on the question of the future of Gibraltar.

Before the talks began we made clear to the Spanish Government that the question of Gibraltar could not be discussed solely on the basis of the United Nations General Assembly resolution of last December, which we thought a bad resolution and against which we voted. The Spanish Delegation insisted, as the talks progressed, that no other basis was possible, and this prevented any real progress from being made.

The Anglo-Spanish talks have now ended. Can the Government say what they propose to do about the decolonisation of Gibraltar, as independence is out? Does not integration or close association remain?

Those are possibilities, but I do not think that they immediately arise. As the hon. Gentleman says, the talks are now at an end.

Is it not obvious that the talks with Spain about Gibraltar bring us nothing but snubs and humiliations? Is it not time that the Government considered retaliation against the acts of Spain to the detriment of Gibraltar?

In order to consider that, one has also to consider a form of action which would be useful and helpful. I am not sure that this is readily available. Meanwhile, we have been concerned to give, and have given, quite substantial help to the economy of Gibraltar.

While recognising the delicacy of this matter, is it not about time that the Government showed General Franco and his Government that we can take the initiative from this country, whatever it might be, instead of always tagging along behind and letting the world think that they always get the best in any discussions that take place?

I do not think that that is so or that they always get the best in the discussions that take place. If the hon. Gentleman has read some of the accounts that have been placed in the Library from time to time he will have seen that we have stated our position on the matter clearly and convincingly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement about the United Kingdom's relations with the Republic of South Yemen.

In accordance with the undertaking given at Geneva in November, we have informed the Southern Yemen Government that we shall be ready to resume negotiations on matters left outstanding at Geneva in the later half of April. A mutually con- venient date will be arranged nearer the time.

In considering the question of the continuation of aid, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the fact that British officials who were on contract have been dismissed? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that they receive compensation? Will he also remember that Federal Ministers and civil servants loyal to Britain are still in prison and that we owe them some responsibility?

The officers to whom the hon. Gentleman refers were, of course, on contract and, in that sense, the Government of South Yemen had the right to determine their period of employment. However, we have made, and are continuing to make, representations to the South Yemen Government on the matter of compensation for these men. On the question of former leaders who have been in prison, the House will share a feeling of relief that none has been sentenced to death, except those in absentia, and that those whom the Government were able to lay their hands on have simply been sentenced to periods of imprisonment.

Oh.

Has any progress yet been made in arranging for the repatriation of the bodies of British Servicemen who were killed during the emergency? If not, will the Minister give this matter high priority?

I will certainly look into that as a matter of urgency.

In view of the number of individuals still held awaiting trial, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that we are not in the least satisfied with what he said? Is he aware that my hon. Friends and I have made considerable representations to his right hon. Friend about this matter? What does he intend to do about it?

I am glad of this opportunity to add to what I said. We, of course, abhor what has happened; namely, the sentencing, whether to imprisonment or death, of people guilty of nothing more than co-operating loyally with the existing Government. We have made this view abundantly plain to the South Yemen Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of us object to the manner of his reply? Will he ensure that negotiations based on an application for a loan will not be proceeded with until justice is done in this matter and until the question of compensation is cleared up?

I assure my hon. Friend and the House generally that it was certainly not my intention, in answering the original Question, to show any sense of indifference or, indeed, lack of compassion towards these men. I endeavoured in my answers to supplementary questions to make this abundantly clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he approved the decision of the Bank of England to participate in the loan to Egypt.

Now that we have normal relations with the United Arab Republic there is no reason why Her Majesty's Government should not participate in a facility of this kind, in which other Western financial institutions were taking part. An improvement in the United Arab Republic's relationship with the International Monetary Fund should place it in a better position to make satisfactory arrangements for settling its financial and commercial obligations to the United Kingdom. In any case, the facility has now been repaid in full following drawings by the United Arab Republic from the Fund.

Does the Minister think it reasonable to grant facilities of this kind to a Government who are imprisoning British ships and indulging in warlike preparations against a neighbour at a time when Her Majesty's Government are compelled to restrict investment in, for example, Australia and New Zealand?

Following the resumption of normal relations with the U.A.R. it was perfectly sensible for us to see whether we could assist in a matter of this kind, in co-operation with other Western countries. As to whether the present dispute and difficulties in the Middle East would be helped by our not co-operating as far as we could with the countries of the Middle East, including the U.A.R., I beg to differ from the right hon. Gentleman.

When was the last request made to the Egyptian Government to free the ships and crews now being impudently held in the canal?

Since the resumption of relations we have been in constant touch with the U.A.R. about this matter. A promising attempt was made in January—[Interruption.]—an encouraging attempt—[Interruption.]—an attempt which showed signs of succeeding was made in January, but it was overtaken by events. Subsequently we have made further representations to the U.A.R. and I very much hope that there will shortly be a new proposal by the U.A.R. to the United Nations for a further attempt to clear the canal.

Why should we give loans to a Government who detain our ships?

The question of the detention of ships is not as simple as all that. Their release depends on there being a general settlement between the two sides. We are making every effort, particularly in support of the Jarring Mission, to see that both Israel and the U.A.R., and the Arab world generally, come to an agreement which, among other things, will secure the freeing of these ships.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply Her Majesty's Government have received to their further approach to the Soviet Government with a view to securing the release of Herr Rudolf Hess from Spandau.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary informed the House on 26th February—[Vol. 759, c. 914–5]—the Soviet Government have refused to agree to our further approach to secure the release of Herr Hess from Spandau.

For how long do Her Majesty's Government intend to wait? Are the Western Powers considering any action on their own account?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is the result of a four-Power agreement and that a change can be effected only with the agreement of the four Powers concerned. In the meantime, we are considering the possibility of reaching agreement on less elaborate methods of detention for Herr Hess.

Since even this week some of the appalling atrocities and vulgarities which were perpetrated by the Nazi régime are coming to light, will my right hon. Friend ensure that this matter is not given any priority whatever?

It is not a question of priorities. We feel, for many reasons, that it would be sensible for Herr Hess to be released.

Since Hess's solitary confinement was never intended but has occurred because all the other prisoners were released from Spandau, will the right hon. Gentleman press this matter further with the Soviet Union?

All the arguments adduced have been put to the Soviet Ur ion, but their answer is "No".

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

Yes, Sir. Our contribution to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for the calendar year 1968 should be £1,875,000, an increase over our regular contribution for 1967 of just under £268,000.

Is my hon. Friend aware that he is to be congratulated on improving the grant which is being made, and grossing it up to take care of devaluation? Could he say whether any suggestions have been made to the Arab Governments that adequate weatherproof camps should be established on the uplands away from the flashpoint of the Jordan Valley?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said. I think the whole House will agree that in view of the great suffering and distress among the refugees both old and new in these areas, it was right to increase this contribution. On his second point, I would say that it and similar points have been put to the Commission, and I will see that what he has said is specifically drawn to its attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what decision has now been reached regarding raising the matter of the treatment of Greek political prisoners with the International Committee of the Red Cross.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, following his study of the report of Amnesty International on the use of physical tortures on political prisoners by employees of the de facto Government of Greece, he will now request the International Committee of the Red Cross to carry out an investigation.

I am glad to say that a team from the International Committee of the Red Cross has been working in Greece. In these circumstances I am satisfied that a formal approach to the International Committee of the kind suggested would not help.

As some terrible torture cases have recently come to light, and have been published in newspapers such as The Guardian and The Times, may I ask why the Government are stalling on this very important matter? If the Scandinavian countries are willing to take action, why do the British Government seem so afraid to offend the thugs who at present are ruling in Greece?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend has again got things completely wrong. It is nothing to do with the International Red Cross to investigate the issue that a Scandinavian Government have put to the European Commission on Human Rights. We have great sympathy with the motives of the Government that made that reference. That reference having been made, we must wait for the European Commission to carry out investigations in the way that it thinks best. The International Committee of the Red Cross can work only with facilities provided by the Government in whose territory it is working. I am glad to say that it is working in Greece, and we look forward to having its reports.

Is it the Minister's opinion that the report of Amnesty International is entirely reliable?

I am in no position to form a view, but I can tell the House that a representative of Amnesty International was in Athens last week, and I am glad to say that we were able to be of some service to him. I understand that some facilities were made available to him by the Greek Government. We are looking forward to getting his report as soon as it is available.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. Friend's reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he intends to make either with the United Kingdom's partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or unilaterally for the normalisation of relations between Great Britain and the German Democratic Republic.

None, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is stupid that we should connive at this position so long after the end of the war? Is he aware that some of his right hon. Friends, at least, are trying to normalise our relations with the G.D.R. in regard to trade, much to our advantage? Is he further aware of statements made by the S.P.D.? Will he now look at the whole question, and take an initiative to secure peace and a reduction of tension in Western Europe?

I agree that it is very unsatisfactory that so long after the war there has not been a peace treaty for Germany, but with a policy which is that of the three Governments concerned, one can only consider that the final boundaries of Germany would be those determined by a peace treaty. I understand from the statements of Herr Brandt and the German Government that that is a view they share.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further proposals he has received from the French Government for increasing trade between the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom.

None, Sir.

Does it not look as though President de Gaulle has now vetoed his own proposal for closer association between the Six and the Seven? In view of the President's intransigent attitude, would not the right hon. Gentleman feel that it would be worth while to go to Paris and really find out what the French do want; and get to the bottom of the matter?

This is not just a matter between us and the French. Our application for membership was made to the Community as a whole. The E.E.C. Council of Ministers is meeting again at the end of this week, and will no doubt continue discussion of a number of proposals, including the terms of the plan put forward after Chancellor Kiesinger's visit to Paris. We have made it clear that we would be prepared to consider any proposal made to us by the Six as a whole.

Now that we have a new Foreign Secretary, might we not make still further progress and have some new ideas on this whole issue?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the Franco-German plan to link Great Britain with the Common Market.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Franco-German Declaration and the German development of it.

Would the foreign Secretary say now whether a policy of association with the Common Market would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government provided that it contained a clear timetable for eventual full membership?

As has been said before, there are great difficulties about an approach of this kind, but, as I said in answer to an earlier Question, this matter is for discussion among the E.E.C. Ministers. We would certainly consider any proposals which came to us from the Six as a whole.

Would the right hon. Gentleman give the House the benefit of what definition there is in this proposal? He says that it is going to be discussed in the E.E.C., but what is to be discussed in the E.E.C.? Could have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT some time?

I do not think I could give that straight away in answer to a question. It was not a proposal made to us. I may be able to tell the House more about it at a later stage.

Does not my right hon. Friend think, apart from any proposal for association, that the original proposal for entry to the Common Market is one of the Cecil King policies which have collapsed? Does not my right hon. Friend think that Cecil King owes an apology to the country and to the Government?

I remind my hon. Friend that it was one of the policies mentioned in the election manifesto.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what communications he has now had with the Governments of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands on the subject of the Benelux plan; and whether he has indicated Her Majesty's Government's acceptance or rejection of the plan.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) on 26th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 932–24.]

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, given that the French are not involved, the Benelux plan must be a non-starter? Does not he think that there is something slightly illogical in the British Government's being prepared to talk about the future of our relations with Europe with friendly Governments like the Government of the Netherlands whilst not apparently being prepared to talk with the Government of France, who are the cause of the main obstacles to our present policy?

No. There is a difference here. The Benelux proposals were definite proposals made to us. The Franco-German statements are not at present in the form of proposals to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he now intends to take in order to set up a European technological community open to all States.

I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 27th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop).—[Vol. 759, c. 1222–3.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the European technological community is probably the only good idea the Prime Minister ever had? Why do not the Government do something to back it, and get it off the ground?

The technological community—the hon. Gentleman used the word "community"—can only be considered in the context of full membership by this country and other countries in the unified market. On the other hand, it is possible to pursue various projects of technological collaboration not involving the community, and we are actively looking at these matters now.

Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister went to Strasbourg and there made a very impressive speech on the matter? What has happened to his initiative since that time?

We stand ready to consider any proposals coming from the Six. As I said, any full working out of the technological community with full British participation must depend on our being admitted to the unified market. In the meantime, there may be other, ad hoc, projects into which British participation can be worked.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has to increase the commercial staff of the British Embassy in the Republic of South Africa.

The commercial staff of the Embassy at Pretoria was reinforced last year. At the same time, the Consulate-General at Johannesburg was made the central point for handling trade promotion in South Africa and the staff was also increased. Additional staff will be provided as the need arises.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman confirm that South Africa has been, and remains, a valuable, a welcome and an expanding trade partner? In view of the increased competition to which we are now subjected from the French and others, would it not be a suitable recognition of that fact if the Government were to proceed as a matter of urgency with the strengthening of British commercial representation in the Republic?

The hon. Gentleman made a very eloquent speech. The only reason why I cannot immediately agree that the representation should be strengthened is that we anticipated the hon. Member's views and strengthened it only very recently.

Could my right hon. Friend indicate what proportion of total British trade in Africa goes to South Africa, and what proportion to the other independent African States? Would it not be politically better to increase trade with the other African States?

I am afraid that I cannot give figures like that off the cuff. In any event, they are probably more the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will call a conference of all interested parties with a view to an agreement securing access for members of all faiths to the sacred places in the Holy Land.

Her Majesty's Government sympathise with the sentiment behind the hon. Gentleman's Question, but do not think that any initiative on their part would be helpful whilst the United Nations Special Representative is pursuing his efforts to promote a settlement in the Middle East.

Does not the Minister agree that the only chance of getting agreement is to keep this question separate from the general political issue, and particularly the issue of internationalising Jerusalem?

This is, at least, doubtful. Constantly in touch, as we are, with both sides to this problem, it is clear to us that the quickest way to solve this point, like other elements of the general problem, is to secure a general settlement, and we think that the best way to do that is to support Dr. Jarring's Mission.

Is it not the case that there is already complete freedom of access to the holy places, as was observed recently by a number of hon. Members on both sides who visited the holy places in Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth?

There is access to citizens from certain countries, but not access—[Interruption.] My information is that citizens of countries declaring themselves to be in a state of war with Israel are subject to certain restrictions not applied to visitors from other countries.

In view of the great significance which Zion has to all those who live in Israel, will the hon. Gentleman now be prepared to reconsider the attitude about this matter as expressed by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) when he was Foreign Secretary?

There is complete continuity in Her Majesty's Government's policy in this matter from the time when my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) was in charge of Foreign Affairs.

In view of the fact that, for the first time in 2,000 years, there is a Government in control of the holy places which is allowing freedom of access to persons of all religions, does not my hon. Friend think it would be most inappropriate if the British Government, which did nothing for many years to bring about this state of affairs, were now to interfere?

I have said that there are certain restrictions on citizens of certain countries. We would very strongly support any action by the Israeli Government to remove any remaining restrictions and we would support, preferably through the Jarring Mission which is in the field, a general settlement which would bring this matter within the general context of a lasting settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about the chrome at present being purchased by Japanese firms from Rhodesia and re-exported to the United States; and whether he will name the firms concerned.

None, Sir. I am informed that the United States does not import chrome of Rhodesian origin from Japan.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is high time we stopped relying on Sunday newspapers and that the Government should publish their own black list of firms undermining sanctions policy and take all appropriate action to bring pressure to bear?

I assure my hon. Friend that we do not get our information entirely from Sunday newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not entirely?"] I am informed—[Interruption.] The facts as we have ascertained them are that the United States does not import chrome of Rhodesian origin from Japan. That is what my hon. Friend asked his Question about.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how much oil he now estimates has reached Rhodesia from Algeria and other sources since the imposition of mandatory sanctions; what are the sources other than Algeria; how much of this oil has come through Total and how much through other companies; what are the other companies; what proposals Her Majesty's Government is now putting forward for the internationalisation of sanction supervision; and whether he will make a statement.

I have no information that oil is reaching Rhodesia from Algeria and I should prefer to say nothing which might reveal the extent of our knowledge of the source of the oil currently reaching Rhodesia. As regards the last part of the Question, this is of course one of the matters now being considered by the Security Council in its deliberations on Rhodesia.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that we are fed up with seeing our own expensive efforts undermined by the connivance of Governments such as the French at sanction-breaking and we believe there must be effective international machinery soon introduced to deal with the problem? What are we to propose?

I am afraid my hon. Friend is assuming things which have not been proved. We are now engaged in the United Nations in trying to arrange for stricter security measures aimed at the control of this situation and at preventing oil from reaching Rhodesia.

As Rhodesia is getting all the oil supplies she needs and is selling practically the whole of her chrome output, could not the hon. Gentleman confide in the House where her markets really are for chrome and from where she is getting oil? Is not the whole of the Government's policy a leaky colander?

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that oil and petrol are still rationed in Rhodesia. As to the progress of Rhodesian trade, it shows a very distinct drop on the past year or two.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take the necessary steps to seek to have the legal status of South-West Africa determined by the International Court of Justice.

No, Sir. A reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on this matter would need a request from the United Nations General Assembly or the Security Council. It is unlikely that a majority vote for such a move could be obtained in either body.

What view do Her Majesty's Government take of the extension by the Government of South Africa of their own domestic criminal jurisdiction—of very dubious legality—over the South-West African territory?

It is, as my hon. Friend says, a question of legality. It is at least doubtful whether a reversion of South African rights to administer this territory could legally be made to the United Nations. In the meantime a feasibility study, a study of the position, is being made by Her Majesty's Government. I would hope fairly soon to be able to say something on the question of what precisely are the rights and obligations of the mandated country in regard to this territory.

Seeing that a definitive opinion on this matter was delivered by the International Court of Justice as long ago as 1950, why is another one wanted?

I am not aware that another has been asked of the International Court. I was simply saying that the legal position is at least dubious.