asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will dissociate Great Britain from the use of chemical and biological warfare by the United States of America in Vietnam.

I am not aware of any American activity in this field to warrant our dissociation.

Would my right hon. Friend inform those who advise him that one Australian officer has died during a gas attack in Vietnam and that the use of defoliants in Vietnam cannot be categorised as other than the use of chemical and biological warfare, warfare which is not against military targets—although the excuse is used that to defoliate exposes guerillas—but which is, in fact, occasioning starvation among an already starving population?

My hon. Friend has already given one of the most important reasons for the use of defoliants; and if this stops ambush raids, it is saving life. It is inevitable in the operations of war that there will be an interdiction of food supplies. I am not aware of any use of lethal gases.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has received, as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Agreement, about the willingness of the Government of North Vietnam to accept the good offices of the United Nations, with a view to the early cessation of hostilities.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 1st April, North Vietnam has consistently rejected any suggestion that the United Nations should concern themselves with the affairs of Vietnam; and I regret to say that I have received no information of the nature described in this Question.—[Vol. 762, c. 2.]

While this Question, perhaps fortunately, has been out-dated by recent more hopeful developments, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the United Nations we still have a very useful rôle to play in getting an ultimate settlement?

Certainly. As I think the House knows, the United States has long been willing to submit the Vietnam question to the United Nations and to keep the Security Council informed of their actions.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, with his co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, he has been in touch with the three Control Commission members to ensure that if required they are prepared to play their part in reaching a settlement?

I have from time to time been in touch with the International Control Commission members. What part they and the co-Chairmen may have to play is, I think, one of the things we may know more about in future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy in relation to the proposed peace talks on Vietnam.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my Reply to the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 180.]

In view of the chaos in France, will the right hon. Gentleman issue an immediate invitation to the participants in the Vietnam talks to move their talks to London where, thanks to the Parliamentary system, order can be assured?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I think not.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether Mr. Harriman was correctly reported as saying in a public statement that the N.L.F. could have no share in the future Government of South Vietnam? If so, will my right hon. Friend represent to the United States Government that many people will feel it difficult to believe that they are seriously interested in peace if they stick to this point of view?

I should like to check that report before commenting. I do not think that it would be wise for me at present to make public statements on the attitude of either side.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic initiatives he has taken in non- Commonwealth countries to secure adherence to the United Nations resolution on sanctions against Rhodesia.

As has been made clear on many occasions in the House, Her Majesty's Government are in regular touch with other Governments, including non-Commonwealth countries, about the implementation of the Security Council resolution on sanctions.

Since being in touch with countries is not the same as bringing diplomatic pressure to bear on them, may I ask my right hon. Friend to appreciate that what is happening over the breaking of sanctions—not the least alarming report of which came over the weekend from Germany—is causing us a certain amount of despondency at the failure of the Government to take the necessary initiatives with other countries?

Whatever my hon. Friend may think about the course of our communications, one thing is certain and that is that they would be of no value if they were not confidential. On the broad question of the implementation of sanctions, it is, of course, a matter for the Security Council to determine whether members of the United Nations are in breach of their obligations under Article 25.

What is the attitude of the Japanese Government to sanctions? Is it not a fact that they are very sceptical of this policy succeeding? When will Her Majesty's Government face the reality of the situation and realise that this policy is a very unrealistic one and is not getting the support of some Asiatic countries?

On the contrary. There is every evidence that a number of African and Asiatic countries want further sanctions to those now proposed. As I have already said, it is a mistake to think that it is our responsibility, or that we have the means, to enforce sanctions resolutions of the Security Council. This is a matter for the U.N. and very recently the matter was reviewed there, when it was shown that the majority of members are carrying out the mandatory resolution concerned.

Would my right hon. Friend believe, in the bowels of Christ, that he is wrong about private conversations? Will he try, instead, public debate in the Security Council, calling on Governments to ensure that their nationals do not violate the sanctions and, at the same time, show the evidence we have that this has happened; and then he would get a real result?

My reference to confidential discussions was on the basis of representations between one Government and another. There have been many public discussions in the Security Council and, as my hon. Friend reported to the House on 24th April, one is now going on about our proposal for further sanctions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Outer Space Assistance Treaty which he recently signed.

The Agreement on the Rescue and Return of Astronauts and the Return of Objects Launched into Outer Space stems directly from the United Nations Outer Space Treaty which came into force on 10th October, 1967. The Agreement is both of value in itself and as an example of international co-operation. Her Majesty's Government, who are one of the three depository powers, signed the Agreement on 22nd April.

While this is a modest and useful advance in international co-operation, may I ask my right hon. Friend what contribution Britain will be able to make in the rescue of astronauts and how many countries are now signatories to this Treaty?

To answer the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, 56 States had, by the middle of last week—the latest date for which we have figures—signed the Treaty. To answer the first part of his supplementary question, about what part we can play, that depends very much on where the emergency landings of astronauts take place. The purpose of the Treaty is to get an international procedure so that the maximum assistance can be given and the country concerned notified as early as possible; and, of course, the United Nations Secretary-General would be notified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he intends to accede to the United Nations Protocol on the Status of Refugees.

Shortly, we hope, and in any event before the end of Human Rights Year.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but would he accept that merely sending food to refugee camps touches only the fringe of the problem; and that every month during which these people remain in the camps is a very wretched month out of their lives?

I agree with my hon. Friend's sentiments, but the delay in the implementation of the Convention does not affect that issue. It extends the date during which these people would be classified as refugees. But we hope very soon to sign. The delay on our part has been due to the need to consult all the dependent territories which would be covered as the result of our signature.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with what countries claims remain outstanding for compensation for damage to United Kingdom embassies during the Middle East crisis last summer.

A claim has been presented to Kuwait and claims will be presented to the Lebanon, Libya, the U.A.R., Iraq and Syria as soon as possible.

Can my hon. Friend explain why there have been these very long delays in these countries and various other countries whilst Tunisia, for instance, settled very promptly, when in all cases the claims are of comparatively minor financial importance?

We must all regret the delay. It is partly due to the fact that there has been an absence of diplomatic relations between Britain and several of these countries, and also real difficulties in assessing the damage which was incurred.

Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House whether any claim was made or compensation offered in respect of the aeroplane of our military attache in Jordan which was destroyed on the ground at Amman airfield by the Israeli Air Force?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action was taken by Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations Security Council on the resolution regarding the decision by Israel to proceed with a military parade through Jerusalem.

Her Majesty's Government made their disapproval of this parade quite clear by voting for the Security Council Resolutions of 27th April and 2nd May.

Is not a militaristic display of this kind in a city that does not belong to Israel to be thoroughly deplored?

I think my first Answer made that clear.

Would my right hon. Friend consider why, when Jordan violated all the rules of decency in that part of Jerusalem which she had annexed, the Security Council did not take a similar step in respect of Jordan?

I would agree that this matter of the parade in Jerusalem is only one aspect of a very great problem in which there is a great deal to be said on both sides. The solution of the problem depends upon the removal on both sides of a great weight of suspicion. We deplore this particular action because it was liable to give colour and weight to these suspicions.

Would the Foreign Secretary instruct his representative not to indulge in the passing of totally absurd resolutions which will never be carried out?

No, Sir. I do not believe that if we treat the United Nations in that way we shall get the growth in the rule of law which is essential in the long run if world peace is to be preserved.

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

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

Her Majesty's Government have been pleased to note that the Special Representative of the Secretary-General in the Middle East, Dr. Jarring, has secured the agreement of the three principal parties to continue his current contacts with them in New York. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make a further statement at this juncture.

Should the Jarring mission fail, have the Government any alternative proposals for reaching a settlement? For instance, do they have a view about the proposals mentioned in The Times of 17th May, which envisaged temporary international custodianship of those parts of Palestine, including Jerusalem, which have been occupied by Israel after the June war?

We have considered this proposal and other proposals, and what line of action might be necessary if Dr. Jarring's mission should not be successful. Fortunately, at present this is hypothetical.

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the continued Russian infiltration in the Middle East, including the large-scale supply of arms to the Yemen and the proposed introduction of a naval base in the Gulf?

I do not think that comment arises out of this Question.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the long term the only real hope for peace must lie in direct negotiations between the two sides rather than by mediation by Dr. Jarring or anyone else? Will the Government, therefore, do all in their power to press on countries in the Middle East the importance of taking at least the step of starting some form of negotiation between themselves?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that the objective he has in mind could not be reached immediately. I believe that what Dr. Jarring is now doing could be helpful to that end. At this moment, therefore, I have taken the view that the best service we can render is to urge on the parties concerned that they should give all support to Dr. Jarring's work. Of course, further steps would be necessary later on.

Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's view, expressed at the United Nations by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), that there can be no satisfactory settlement without a withdrawal from the territories which were occupied last summer?

I would agree with that view, but the danger of stopping short of agreement with that is that the United Nations resolution referred to a good many other things besides withdrawal. What we want, I take it, is a settlement in which Israel and her neighbours can live side by side with such relations between them as ought to exist between fellow members of the United Nations. That was also involved in the United Nations resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action is being taken in order to free British vessels held up in the Suez Canal.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a direct approach to the authorities in Egypt and Israel with a view to obtaining the release of the four British ships at present detained in the Suez Canal.

Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel, with other ship-owning countries, and with the United Nations. We are doing all we can to get arrangements made for the release of the ships, but I cannot forecast when we shall see practical results.

My right hon. Friend will agree that these talks have been going on for a very long time. Is any progress being made? Is any pressure being brought to bear on the United Arab Republic? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Government now find themselves in a hopeless and helpless position, and does not that also apply to the United Nations?

No, Sir. I think that my right hon. Friend is taking too pessimistic a view here. The reason for the difficulties is that this is not an isolated problem: it is part of the whole Arab-Israel problem. We have been in touch with the Government of the United Arab Republic and, indeed, with all those who are concerned.

What is the cost to the British economy in the first quarter of this year of these blocked ships? As they have now been there a year, can the Foreign Secretary say which of the two Powers would object if a United Nations force tried to get the ships out by unblocking the south of the Canal?

To a proposal for a United Nations force I do not think that there would at present be agreement by either party. As I say, we have to regard the solution of this matter as part of the solution on the whole Arab-Israel question. I think that the losses at present to our economy are in the neighbourhood of £20 million a month.

Since it may be a matter of years before the Suez Canal is opened, if ever, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider starting a special "operation-release" to get our four ships out, even if they prove the last to leave.

Among the possibilities we have examined is one for getting out the ships that are at present there, which would be a different operation from completely clearing the Canal. There are possibilities there on which we are still engaged.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that this is not just a question to be brought before the United Arab Republic, but that both the United Arab Republic and Israel have some responsibility for the fact that the ships are still there?

Yes, Sir. I have very recently been in touch with both Governments about this matter.

The Foreign Secretary said that this is not a problem that can be isolated, but might it not be isolated? Was not there at one time a plan, with which it seemed that the Egyptians and the Israelis would agree, of a dredging operation to the south, which is the natural outlet?

I should have said that an operation to get out the ships at present there could be isolated from the rest of the problem. The actual complete opening of the Canal is bound up with the whole problem. As I say, with regard to the smaller question, there are possibilities on which we are now engaged.

If we are held to ransom in any way by the Egyptian authorities in this matter—and is it not a fact that the Egyptians are looking to this country to provide them with a massive loan—what is the extent of the terms we are being asked to meet for the release of British ships?

I do not think I can answer that question. I do not think it should be put entirely in that way. There will be need for help from more than the Egyptians if this is to be solved.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of the Central Treaty Organisation meeting held in London in April.

The Council of Ministers of the Central Treaty Organisation met in London on 23rd and 24th April. There was a useful exchange of views, both on matters directly affecting the Central Treaty Organisation region, and on wider international matters and general agreement on the policy the Central Treaty Organisation should follow.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that since we are withdrawing from the Persian Gulf and the Far East there seems little point in remaining in membership of C.E.N.T.O., with so many conflicting interests?

No, Sir. It is true of course that the countries which compose C.E.N.T.O. have each a wide range of interests, but it is generally understood that it is not the purpose of C.E.N.T.O. to deal with all those problems. It has the limited but useful objective of giving stability and confidence to the regional countries and promoting economic development among them.

Since one of the purposes of C.E.N.T.O. is to safeguard its member nations against possible Soviet aggression, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the brush-off which he gave to my noble friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) when he asked him to comment about the presence of the Soviet Navy in the Gulf? Surely that is important?

I did not say it was unimportant, but I did not think it arose out of the Question on which it was asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British citizens were stranded abroad and repatriated through the action of British Consuls during 1967.

2,398.

Would my hon. Friend agree that it is scandalous that constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs. Bossley, who found themselves involved in the Middle East war last June had to pay £242 of their own money to bring themselves home? Would he agree that there should be some responsibility on the carriers at least to refund part of the return fare and not to escape responsibility entirely?

The responsibility of the Government in this respect is to make sure that no undue burden shall fall on the taxpayer, whatever the unhappy circumstances anyone finds himself in. The point raised by my hon. Friend is a different one and I think that he might find it worth while to pursue it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the successful road building operations for civilian purposes of British troops in Thailand, carried out in co-operation with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development, he will seek to ensure that comparable teams are available for similar aid elsewhere.

Yes, Sir. Army teams are carrying out similar projects in the British Virgin Islands and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A further party is leaving shortly for Malta.

Requests for help of this nature will continue to be dealt with sympathetically within the limitations of the Army's strategic commitments and training programme.

Are the requests dealt with through the Minister of Overseas Development or the Ministry of Defence? Would it not be welcome if schemes of this kind could be expanded at a time when the ceiling for overseas aid has been fixed for the next two years?

We have to consider here the total ceiling for aid of any kind whatever agency is used, but it is certainly the case that there is full co-ordination of the Foreign Office with the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Overseas Development to ensure that where a job is to be done it is done in the quickest and most effective way.

Will the hon. Gentleman recognise that the use of British Forces for this purpose can be only limited and that if we carry it too far we will soon find that we have no British troops left?

I think there is some misunderstanding of the attitude of the Army to this sort of work. I want to make clear that it has been widely welcomed by the Army and the road building operation in Thailand has been a most useful training exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations with South Yemen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with the Government of South Yemen.

I have nothing to add to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 13th May.—[Vol. 764, c. 182–3.]

Does the Minister recall that a number of British officials were dismissed by the South Yemen Government on the occasion when the British Ambassador asked our pilots not to fly over the South Yemen frontiers? This was not in the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker). What is the position about compensation for the British officials who were dismissed?

The interim settlement we made and the further settlement we intended to make carried certain obligations on the Aden Government of the kind which the hon. Member and others have mentioned.

Although there is a further Question later on the Order Paper about the position of individuals in South Yemen, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has anything further to say now about the security of British installations and property in the Republic?

The South Yemen Government said at the time when the negotiations were broken off that they wished their relations with this country to remain normal. I believe that is so and I do not think there is ground for anxiety on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of his consideration of the effect on the negotiations with South Yemen of the prosecution and sentencing to death, or to long terms of imprisonment, by that Government of former servants and members of the Aden Administration because of their service to, and work for the former British Administration; and whether he will refuse help of any sort until a satisfactory reply is received.

The political trials were one of the factors taken into account in deciding on the timing and content of the recent negotiations on aid. As the negotiations ended without any agreement the question of future aid does not now arise.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that while people are being persecuted and prosecuted for the offence of having served our own regime it would be intolerable to give any aid or comfort to such a regime as the present?

We were engaged in negotiations to give some aid beyond the interim aid. We took into account the facts—and they are serious and deplorable facts—to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. We do not believe, for reasons which have been given to the House, that, for that cause, we should not have made any offer at all. However, the offer was in my judgment unwisely rejected and the question of aid therefore now does not arise at all.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, so long as we remain patently impotent to protect our friends, it is not much use having a fleet of Polaris submarines?

I am not quite sure of the moral my hon. and learned Friend is endeavouring to draw from that. I make no bones about the fact that we were not able to give those who had been friendly to us the protection we should have done, but in consequence of representations we made—I think that it was in large measure due to them—the political trials came to an end and no death sentences were carried out.

As there is no question of any further negotiations or further aid, can the Foreign Secretary say whether Her Majesty's Government now assume responsibility for pensions to some of these people, who are very deserving and were being paid by Her Majesty's Government?

These are obligations which are accepted by the South Yemen Government and are part of the Geneva Agreement governing interim aid, and they are not affected by the fact that the negotiations for further aid have not come to any conclusion.

Now that the Foreign Secretary states that no further aid will be given in any circumstances, what steps does he propose to take in response to the threat of the South Yemen Government to nationalise the British oil refinery without compensation?

That is a hypothetical question. I stated earlier that the attitude of the South Yemen Government is that they wish relations between our two countries to be normal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are his plans to alleviate Spanish pressure on Gibraltar.

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting Gibraltar from 22nd to 24th May to continue discussions with Gibraltar Ministers on this and other questions.

As most sensible people would like to see a friendly Spain and expansion of trade between Gibraltarians and Spaniards, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the balance of trade, taking tourist revenue into account, is very much in favour of Spain at present?

Yes. That is certainly one of the considerations we have in mind.

Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the all-party Motion on Gibraltar based on a Motion before the Assembly of the Council of Europe and signed by all parties from nearly all the national delegations?

I think the Leader of the House is fully aware of that most important Motion.

If the Spanish Government persist in harassing Gibraltar, will the Foreign Office do something about making an inventory of Spanish assets in this country with a view to pressure on them by way of retaliation?

Without necessarily saying that the method suggested by my hon. Friend would be a practical and desirable one, certainly we do not rule out the possibility of retaliation, although we are also considering positive help to the people of Gibraltar to sustain them in their difficult times.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why no copy of the annex to the draft treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala was deposited in the Library of the House of Commons on 29th April 1968; and whether he will ensure that the British text of the final treaty is in English.

We received the annex from the mediator some time after the draft treaty, but copies have now been placed in the Library of the House. I am sure that the language of any final treaty will avoid any infelicities which the hon. Member finds in the present draft.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that, before the Foreign Secretary claims that proposals have been put before the House in the Library, the proposals do exist in this country? It is not good enough to offer that sort of thing to the House when no one can see what the full proposals of the mediator are.

The hon. Gentleman is being very unreasonable. We placed the draft treaty in the Library as soon as it was available. The annex was not available—that was not our responsibility— but we placed it there as soon as it was in our hands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will enter into negotiations with the Republic of Mexico to ensure that dormant Mexican claims to part of the territory of British Honduras do not subsist after the projected treaty between Great Britain and the Republic of Guatemala comes into effect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Bethuel Webster proposals to make British Honduras subordinate after independence to Guatemala in foreign affairs and defence.

We have for long had informal consultations with the Mexican Government regarding British Honduras, and these consultations continue.

In my statement to the House on 29th April, I said that we would study the mediator's proposals in consultation with the Government of British Honduras. That Government have now asked Her Majesty's Government not to accede to the proposed treaty, and this request has been unanimously endorsed by the House of Representatives. We have consistently made clear that the dispute with Guatemala would not be settled on a basis which was not in accordance with the wishes of British Honduras.—[Vol. 763, c. 798.]

Will the Foreign Secretary ensure in any future negotiations that the result must be complete independence for British Honduras, not economic domination by Guatemala, and will he note that, unless this is achieved, the old claims of Mexico to the northern portion of British Honduras remain subject to revival?

The Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I repeat what I said at the end of my Answer, that we have consistently made clear that the dispute would not be settled except on a basis acceptable to British Honduras.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent Parliamentary delegation to British Honduras found a unanimous sentiment in that country that the only danger to its defence would come from Guatemala? That being so, what on earth is the good of proposing a defence pact between British Honduras and Guatemala?

In view of the request from British Honduras that we should not accede to the treaty, and the British Government's view on the whole matter which I have just stated, that is a question which does not now arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that he is right in stating that Mexico has declared that it has no claim on any part of British Honduras? Has it not said that it has no claim so long as British Honduras remains attached to the United Kingdom and did it not say that it would not make a claim if British Honduras became attached to Guatemala, but it has never said that it had no claim if British Honduras itself remained independent?

As I understand it, the Mexican Government have stated that they have no territorial ambitions in British Honduras.

Bearing in mind the much larger population of Guatemala, the entirely different cultural attitude there and the fact that it is an unstable police State, does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us are surprised that this draft treaty should have been taken so seriously for so long?

It was right that the mediator should do his work. It is to be regretted, I suppose, that he was not able to find a solution acceptable to both parties; but, since the draft treaty is not acceptable to British Honduras, it is not acceptable to the British Government either.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the outcome of the meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation at Wellington.

My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary attended the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation Council meeting in Wellington on 2nd and 3rd April. The Council noted that, in spite of difficulties, encouraging economic and social progress had been made in the area which had been facilitated by the steady growth of regional co-operation. They also noted our decision to withdraw from Singapore and Malaysia by the end of 1971 and welcomed our assurance that we would continue to contribute to the progress, stability and security of South-East Asia.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that information about these matters in the British Press or available in London was minimal? If there is any advantage in our continued membership of the Organisation, will my hon. Friend endeavour to persuade the Organisation to issue fuller documentation?

I shall certainly take up that point.

As this was the first meeting of the S.E.A.T.O. Council since the Government's decision to pull out east of Suez, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the S.E.A.T.O. Ministers were pleased by the British Government's action, and will he explain why his right hon. Friend came back and did not feel it right to tell the House of Commons what had transpired at this important meeting?

Our allies in S.E.A.T.O. fully understood the circumstances which had determined us upon our withdrawal by the end of 1971, and, as I explained, they were reassured when they were told that we intended to play our part in a number of other ways in the Far East in the period after that.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend meant no discourtesy to the House. This has been the first occasion on which an hon. Member has asked for information.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the likely percentage change in the number of United Kingdom-based personnel serving in British missions overseas during the course of the current financial year.

The current United Kingdom-based establishment overseas is more than 2 per cent. below that in the last financial year. During the current financial year, there will be further redeployments of United Kingdom-based staff to meet our changing tasks, for example, in giving increased attention to work to promote British exports.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the foreign exchange cost of these services has increased 12 times since before the war? Does he suggest that our responsibilities and influence have increased proportionately over that period? Second, has he noticed that the United States Government are able to announce a 10 per cent. cut in the foreign exchange cost of their foreign service in the course of a single year? Why cannot we do the same?

On the first point, although there has been a large increase in costs since the period to which I referred in my Written Answer on 17th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), to which I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring, he will recall that in that Answer I showed that there are more than double the number of countries in which we have representatives, in addition to the development of big missions at the United Nations and elsewhere.

The broad question of how much one can cut depends on how much waste there is to start with, and I should not like to make an observation about the size of United States overseas representation, but the fact remains, as the hon. Gentleman knows, having been a member of the Service, that our overseas representation is inspected regularly every three years. While we are seeking and shall obtain further reductions in these establishments, we have been primarily engaged in the last year or two in changing people from political to commercial work. I think that that is the wish of the House. It is certainly the wish of British industry that we should do it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's present policy concerning the British application to join the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) on 1st April.—[Vol. 762, c. 6–7.]

In view of the dead end which the British application to join the E.E.C. has unfortunately reached, will the Foreign Secretary order a full-scale inquiry into the possibilities of the proposed North Atlantic free trade area?

As the House has been informed, the possibilities of this have already been studied; but I think, to use the hon. Gentleman's phrase, that it would be a dead end.

In the light of the present state of affairs in France, will my right hon. Friend send a message to President de Gaulle informing him that we are not prepared to enter the European Economic Community until France puts its affairs in order?

No, Sir.

Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's original Answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that 82 right hon. and hon. Members of all parties have pressed for a new feasibility study for an open-ended free trade area? As the Prime Minister said that the earlier one was conducted before he made the application, now is the time to have another one, is it not?

I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the use of time and resources in that manner.

As the situation in France has become a great deal more flexible, would not it be the right moment to take any opportunity that arises to press our desire for association with Western Europe?

My right hon. Friend used the term "association"; I do not think that he was using it in the technical sense. Our application is for full membership of the Community. Meanwhile, we are giving particular attention to the Benelux proposals, and would do so to any line of action which would bring us closer to Western Europe and lead directly to our membership of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to convene a conference of the Foreign Ministers of the States that are members of the European Economic Community and of those that wish to be, on the lines of the proposals made by the Italian Government on 23rd February, 1968.

We welcomed the Italian proposals and are ready to take part in such a conference. At the moment, however, the members of the European Economic Community are still continuing their own discussions and I think we must await the outcome of their next meeting.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the feeling is growing in Europe that the time is ripe for a British initiative and that we could possibly help to break the European deadlock if the Government were to take the steps leading towards such a conference?

I understand and sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I think at present we should let the members of the E.E.C. continue their own discussions.

The Prime Minister has said that the Government will consider any proposal emanating from the Six—from the Community as a whole— whereas the Foreign Secretary has said that these proposals to be acceptable must lead directly to full membership of the E.E.C. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that in this case it is the Prime Minister who is expressing the Government view?

The two propositions are not in conflict. We should want proposals from the Six and should not want them to be a substitute for full membership, which is the objective of our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action he has now taken in reply to the initiative of the Governments of the Benelux States for a regular procedure of consultation between member and candidate states for the European Economic Community.

We have made it clear both to the Benelux Governments and to the other Governments concerned that we warmly support this proposal and are ready to play our full part in every channel of consultation open to us.

In view of the paralysis created by France, not only in the Common Market but in France also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must begin to put pressure on to get European unity moving again and that this also is another way in which he could help by supporting these proposals?

We have made clear our support of these proposals. The rest of my answer must be the same as that which I gave the hon. Gentleman a few moments ago.

In view of my right hon. Friend's initial position—that we are only interested in listening to proposals from the whole of the Six—does not he feel that it is odd for the Government to listen to and, apparently, actively to encourage proposals from the three smallest countries in the E.E.C? Does not this jeopardise our whole European strategy?

No, Sir. I do not think that that is so at all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what plans he has to visit Prague, Belgrade, Budapest and Bucharest.

As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st April, I shall, at the invitation of the Governments concerned, be visiting Belgrade in June and Budapest, Sofia and Bucharest in September. I have no plans at present to visit Prague.—[Vol. 762, c. 12–13.]

Do not recent events show how much more beneficial it would be for the Western world if this country rather than France were responding to the welcome and exciting initiatives being undertaken politically and economically in Eastern Europe? Will he bear in mind that he will have very wide goodwill going with him on the visits he proposes to undertake in Eastern Europe?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It has been our policy for some time to have Ministerial exchanges with the countries of Eastern Europe. I visited Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1965, and can now undertake this further group of visits.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be absolutely essential to respond very quickly if Czechoslovakia were to ask for financial assistance? Would he agree to consult other European countries to see whether a loan could be floated if it is requested?

That is going very wide of the Question.

When the Foreign Secretary visits these countries, could he particularly discuss with them the proposal which he has just rejected of the Atlantic Free Trade Area, which is open-ended and which these countries could join, when they could never join the Common Market for political reasons? We want unity in Europe, not half unity in Europe.

We discussed on our visits to these countries the possibility of closer links between Eastern and Western Europe. It is only that I am doubtful of the particular channel the hon. Gentleman proposes.

Will the idea of a European security conference be discussed during the visit?

My hon. Friend knows that these exchanges are usually confidential, but I think that one could say that it would be quite likely that that subject would be discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on disarmament in the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The resumed session of the General Assembly is considering the revised draft of the Non-Proliferation Treaty which was submitted by the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee. I made a statement on 1st May urging the endorsement of the Treaty by the General Assembly with a view to its being opened for signature as soon as possible. The text of this statement is available in the Library and I am sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Could my right hon. Friend have a word with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to ask that we might have a debate on this subject, which is of somewhat more importance than most that we talk about in this Chamber?

I should very much welcome a debate, but I am not sure that I have that amount of influence with my right hon. Friend.

May I press on my right hon. Friend that he should represent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the House should have adequate influence to get such a debate?

I am very encouraged by these statements, but I would point out to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend that in these matters back-benchers often carry more weight than frontbenchers. Perhaps we could do a joint exercise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what consultations he has had, or has been asked to have, with the West German Government under the Allied rights of reservation regarding the emergency laws which Bonn wishes to introduce.

As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) on 19th February, the draft emergency legislation now before the Bundestag has been prepared by the Federal Government in the knowledge of the views and requirements of the United States, French and British Governments. Consultations with the Federal Government have been carried on through Her Majesty's Embassy at Bonn.—[Vol. 759, c. 9–10.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the danger involved in these totalitarian, if not Fascist, powers? Will Her Majesty's Government refuse to sanction these dictatorial measures, which are bitterly opposed by the trade unions, the peace movement and the students throughout West Germany?

On my hon. Friend's first point, it is not a matter for us to agree or not to agree. In the Convention of 1955, it was envisaged that there would be emergency powers relating to the protection of the security of our Armed Forces stationed in the Federal Republic, and that is our position. Our powers in other respects will not be affected by the emergency legislation proposed. I think that my hon. Friend grossly exaggerates the character of the proposed emergency laws. Similar contingency legislation is characteristic of most Western democratic countries. I understand that under these laws a two-thirds Parliamentary majority will be required before a state of emergency can be declared, and throughout the emergency a joint commission representing both Houses of the Federal Parliament will be sitting, so that I think my hon. Friend's description of them is less than just.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the logical consequence of the Western Powers' surrendering these residual rights in West Germany must be a formal recognition of East Germany as a separate State?

The powers we are asked to give up in Article 5 of the Bonn Convention on Relations relate only to the stationing of British troops in the Federal Republic. Responsibilities and rights under the other Articles of that Convention are not affected, particularly those under Article 2, so that I cannot agree that the point raised by my hon. Friend arises.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it was with his authority, and at the expense of his Department, that an ex-delegate to the Council of Europe who was replaced on 30th November, 1967, attended a meeting of a Committee of the Council in Paris on 14th December, 1967.

Authority was given at a time when the hon. Member concerned was still a delegate and the Foreign Office was unaware of a change in status until after the expenditure had been incurred.

Is not this an example of the confusion that has occurred in the appointment of delegates to the Council of Europe and their replacement? Is this confusion deliberate, so that the Foreign Office can say that it is done by my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary and the Patronage Secretary can say that it is done by the Foreign Office?

I am not aware that there is any confusion. Therefore, the question of whether it is deliberate does not arise.

Had the matter been cleared by the Credentials Committee of the Council of Europe?

It did not come within its jurisdiction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on how many days the Assemblies of the Council of Europe and the Western European Union met during the session 1967–68; and on how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present.

Twenty-three and 14 respectively.

I asked three questions, and I have had only two answers. May I have an answer to the latter part of the Question? On how many of these days was the leader of the British delegation present?

I repeat my reply: 23 and 14, respectively.

Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the European delegates to these Assemblies do not take very seriously the British delegation, or our protestations that we wish to get into Europe, when our representation is so meagre and we take our responsibilities so lightly?

It has not been my experience that those who attend the Council of Europe think that we take our interests lsss than very seriously. Our delegation as a whole, including the period daring which my hon. Friend was a Member of it, had a very good attendance record and a very high level of participation.

Who is the leader of the delegation?

I am, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to recent Czechoslovak representations on the matter of the German-Czech frontier; and if he will given an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will maintain the present frontier in negotiations with Germany for a peace treaty.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 8th May, no recent representations have been received from the Czechoslovak Government on this matter. As I informed the House on 24th April, 1967, we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and consider that discussions for a peace treaty must start from the basis that Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question.—[Vol. 764, col. 106; and Vol. 745, col. 207–8.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my Question was prompted by the statement, made in a television interview by Adolf von Thadden, leader of the West German neo-Nazis, that the Munich Agreement was still, in his eyes, valid? Can we have from Her Majesty's Government in this House, although preferably in Prague, a clear and categorical statement to the effect that they regard that infamous Agreement as, to use the correct Germanic expression, no more than a disastrous scrap of paper?

I made such a statement over a year ago when I said that we regard the Munich Agreement as completely dead and that the peace treaty negotiations must start on the proviso that the Czechoslovak frontiers are not in question. We cannot put it more clearly than that.

In all these tremendously important matters, in an effort to get genuine and sensible negotiations conducted in all the matters affecting Europe, would it not be a sensible thing for Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider recognising the German Democratic Republic?

That is a different question. We take the view—and it has been generally accepted—that to get all these frontier questions right one must have a peace treaty, and that is contrary to the course my hon. Friend proposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what was the purpose of the recent official visit to his Department of Major-General Hendrik J. van den Bergh, head of the South African security police.

General van den Bergh did not call at the Foreign Office during his recent visit to London.

In that case, will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to say why permission was given for the head of the South African Gestapo to visit this country at all?

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department explained last week that Major-General van den Bergh came as a visitor and stayed with the South African Ambassador. That seems to me a proper ground on which to admit him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that certain prosecutions resulting in very long sentences in British courts could not have taken place without the co-operation of the South African police?

That is not within my knowledge, but I have no doubt that their co-operation is of value.