asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the discussions within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on proposals to the Warsaw Pact governments for mutual defence reductions.

The North Atlantic Council met in Ministerial Session in Brussels on 15th and 16th November. I will, with permission, circulate the final communiqué in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the section dealing with mutual and balanced force reductions.

Will not the increased military commitments to N.A.T.O. jeopardise and conflict with Saturday's statement that they were continuing, despite the Czechoslovakian setback, with the plans for talks for mutually balanced troop reductions?

The statement made by the North Atlantic Council earlier at Reykjavik about mutual force reductions still stands but, as my hon. Friend says, this is inevitably set back by what has happened in Czechoslovakia.

Will the right hon. Gentleman study the resolutions of the North Atlantic Assembly last week in Brussels and see what widespread support there is for action by the North Atlantic Council?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has put forward since the Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's present policy towards the North Atlantic Treaty and its continuance after its current expiry date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what adjustments are being made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation arising from the action taken by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics against Czechoslovakia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has now had within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with a view to making more effective its defensive objectives; and if he will make a statement.

The North Atlantic Council has just met to consider the situation resulting from the armed Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia. Its conclusions are set out in the official communiqué which is being circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. AS regards our own contribution, I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration gave on 14lh November to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon).—[Vol. 773, c. 146–7.]

Are the meagre defence increases that the Government have announced enough to help us fulfil our new commitments to N.A.T.O.? What are the implications of our new commitments to N.A.T.O.?

Our commitments to N.A.T.O. remain what they have always been. The hon. Gentleman calls the commitments meagre, but this is not the view of our Allies.

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that events in Czechoslovakia have given a new lease of life to N.A.T.O., and does he feel, at the same time, that the Labour Party's doctrine of disengagement lacks something in credibility now that we have seen how rapidly the Soviets can fill a vacuum in Western Europe?

As to giving N.A.T.O. a new lease of life, the hon. Gentleman will see in the communiqué of the allies that it is clear that they regard the Alliance as more necessary than ever. As to the second part of the supplementary question, it is of great importance for both East and West to get force reductions and disengagements if they can, but this has to be a balanced and mutual process.

When warning Russia about its past activities and possible future intentions, did my right hon. Friend weigh up N.A.T.O. 's capabilities or was it just merely talk? Also, does he not realise that it is impossible for the European countries, N.A.T.O. and the rest, to face up to Russia without full military support from the United States?

Yes, Sir. The firm holding together of the European and North American members of the Alliance is a first principle of its success. This was very well understood by all the Ministers at the recent meeting.

Would not the best thing for N.A.T.O. be if the European members of it could unite more than they are doing, and have Her Majesty's Government made any concrete proposals for collaborating with the Six in such matters as defence and arms procurement and other matters which are outside the Treaty of Rome?

Yes, Sir. This is being pursued—by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence at the N.A.T.O. meeting recently, and in connection with the Harmel proposals.

Would my right hon. Friend care to use his authority at the United Nations to condemn all forms of armed intervention wherever it may be and whoever is responsible?

Yes, Sir. This has always been our position.

The phrase "new commitments" has been used in one or two questions. While it is proper to give warning to the Soviet Union, is it not a fact that the only absolute commitment of the N.A.T.O. Alliance is to those who are members of and partners in the Alliance?

Yes, Sir. If I may at the same time refer to a part of the question by my right hon. Friend with which I did not deal at the time, it is true that the clear, unmistakable commitment of the members of N.A.T.O. is to defend each other. In the light of what has happened in Czechoslovakia, they are obliged to consider whether, and to what extent, further action of that kind might affect the security of N.A.T.O. members themselves. When we did this—I say this in reply to my right hon. Friend—we did it together with the military advisers of N.A.T.O. and aware of what is involved.

Will my right hon. Friend not recognise that those of us who are opposed to military intervention, whether by the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia or the United States in Vietnam, feel that some other form of organisation and security ought to be developed? Was there any discussion of a European security pact which would guarantee nations large and small throughout the whole of the continent of Europe?

For some time I have tried to work towards a European security system, but I believe that a necessary prerequisite of that is a general easing of tensions between the countries of East and West Europe. That was what we were working for, and working for with some success. Unfortunately, that work is now set back by what has happened in Czechoslovakia. Therefore, at present we have to lay rather more emphasis on the defence and deterrent side of N.A.T.O. than on the conciliatory function, but I hope that in time it will be possible to resume the other.

In view of the very great importance of what my right hon. Friend said in his last answer but one, will he arrange for the House to have an early debate on the N.A.T.O. declaration of last week?

That is not for me.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the growing feeling in Western Europe that there should be a Western European Union task force in the Eastern Mediterranean under N.A.T.O.?

The hon. Gentleman will see that the Mediterranean is referred to in the communiqué.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in Communist China; how long each of them has been detained; and how many have recently been visited by his officers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are at present detained or believed to be detained in China; and in how many of these cases consular access has been refused.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in securing the release of British subjects detained by the Chinese.

The position remains as stated in the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 14th October. All these persons except one, Mr. George Watt, have been detained without trial. Our Mission in Peking has not been granted consular access to any of them recently. As I told the House during the debate on the Address, in our repeated representations to the Chinese we have made no secret of our view of their deplorable behaviour in this matter. We shall continue to press urgently for information and for consular access to those detained.—[Vol. 770, c. 16–17.]

Is not both this detention and the denial of consular access a complete denial of the normal standards accepted between civilised countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman intend simply to go on protesting, or is it his intention to indicate to the Chinese that if they will behave like barbarians in their own country they cannot expect civilised privileges here?

The answer to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes", but if in the second half he is suggesting that some kind of reprisal I can only say that I do not believe that this would serve the purpose that we both have in mind.

What consideration has the Secretary of State given to telling the Chinese that, if they persist in behaving in his barbarous manner, they cannot expect us to go on supporting Peking's application to join the United Nations?

I have considered a great many courses of action, including this one. I do not believe that this would help, because I think that the continued exclusion of the Peking Government from the United Nations is one factor in the whole situation.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, in spite of many protests of this nature over the past 12 months, the situation has been getting worse? Will he not now consider what retaliation the British Government must take to stop the Chinese from acting in this way? What action is he taking to bring to the attention of other British firms the danger to their employees, such as that experienced by Vickers Zimmer, in carrying out contracts which are to the benefit of the Chinese?

With regard to the second half of the supplementary question, I told the House some time ago that we had drawn the attention of business firms to the risks involved by people visiting China. On the first part, though I do not wish in any way to minimise the seriousness of the situation, it is not correct to say that it is getting worse. Since the summer three British subjects have been released. Our Chargé d'Affaires, as the House knows, Sir Donald Hopson, has been able to return, and the conditions of our Mission have improved. I believe this justifies our trying to handle the matter in the way we are.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the last reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the release from Peking of Mr. Anthony Grey.

We have made repeated representations to the Chinese deploring their unjustified detention of Mr. Grey and will continue to press strongly for his release.

Is it not true that this unfortunate gentleman has been in prison in one room under armed guard for well over a year without charge and has not seen a member of our Mission since April? Is it not also true that actions speak louder than words? When is the right hon. Gentleman going to rescind the visas of the four journalists of the New China News Agency now in London?

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the circumstances of Mr. Grey's detention. As to the second part of his supplementary question—these and other courses of action were referred to in supplementary questions earlier. I give to him now the answer I gave then. I do not believe that these courses of action would make the release of Mr. Grey or the other detainees more likely.

Will my right hon. Friend keep up his efforts to find out the whereabouts of my constituents, the Gordon family, who have disappeared without trace in China? Will he seek the assistance of, perhaps, the International Red Cross to act as mediators?

Yes, Sir. We have made endavours to find out about Mr. Gordon and his family and will see if there is anything further that can be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will expect the British ships detained in the Bitter Lakes by the Egyptians to be released; and what action he is taking to expedite this.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any further progress has been achieved in Her Majesty's Government's attempts to secure the release the British ships trapped in the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiative he proposes to secure the release of British ships presently detained in the Suez Canal.

My right hon. Friend discussed the subject with the United Arab Republic Foreign Minister when they met in London and in New York, and my right hon. and noble Friend, the United Kingdom permanent representative at the United Nations, has been in touch with Dr. Jarring. The subject was also discussed with Mr. Allon, the Israel Deputy Prime Minister, during his recent visit to London. The substance of these consultations is of course confidential, but we are convinced that the way forward is through such patient negotiation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the former Foreign Secretary told the House nine months ago that he expected the early release of these ships? Is the right hon. Gentleman simply prepared to go on with these interminable conversations while British ships are piratically detained for already 17 months?

It is true that in January or February of this year we had fairly high hopes that the initiative we then took would result in the release of these ships. Unfortunately, incidents occurred which made this impossible. Since then we have been very active in pressing forward on all fronts to secure some solution to this problem which could, we think, be isolated from the general Middle East problem.

Is it not untrue to suggest that these ships are detained by the Egyptians? Is it not the fact that last January, when unarmed survey ships commenced to examine the technical feasibility of exit through the north into the Mediterranean, they were fired on by the Israelis, one death resulted, and surveying came to an end? What representations is my right hon. Friend making to Israel?

I do not think that it will help if we try to apportion blame when, clearly, responsibility does not lie on one side or the other. We ought to concentrate on trying to reach a solution on the lines of that which was proposed in January and which came very nearly to fruition.

Have the Government any contingency plans for steps to be taken in the event of hostilities breaking out in this area, as seems more than likely?

That is such a wide-ranging and hypothetical question that I could not answer it at this point.

As Israel is prepared to let the ships out at the south end, and there is every possibility of that being done, and as the U.A.R. has refused point-blank to acknowledge Israel's right to use the Canal, will my right hon. Friend, in the circumstances, press that the ships be allowed to come out through the southern part of the Canal?

This and other possible technical solutions to the problem have been discussed and are being discussed. It would be helpful if we left the ship-owners' working committee—which was set up in January and which is now engaged in talks; in Cairo on these technical matters—to proceed without unduly overlaying the question with political comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the continued closure of the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the continuing closure of the Suez Canal.

I believe that the best hope of reopening the Canal to international shipping lies in a general settlement in the Middle East. We are actively supporting Dr. Jarring's efforts to reach such a settlement on the basis of the principles in the Security Council's resolution of 22nd November, 1967, which included freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area.

Whilst I do not wish to embarrass the shipowners' conference which is going on in Cairo at present, I would point out that this has been going on for a very long time. Does the Minister recall a suggestion I made in a recent foreign affairs debate that the Canal should be unblocked at the south end and the ships let out, and then if necessary blocked up again? What has held up that suggestion?

I have noted the suggestion. A number of suggestions have been made and are being made about the technical ways—and, indeed, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, a political way—of solving the problem. It does not seem to me that, apart from the question of the trapped ships, to separate the wider question of the Canal from the whole problem of the Middle East looks promising.

Bearing in mind the vital importance of this international shipping highway, will my right hon. Friend say if any consideration is being given to a United Nations survey of the obstacles and a clearance by the United Nations, as was done in 1956?

The United Nations could not undertake a survey or removal of the blockage without authorisation from the Security Council. It is a matter for very careful consideration whether such a proposal in the Security Council about the Canal might not set afoot a wider discussion affecting the whole of the Middle East issue, which might not prove helpful to Dr. Jarring in his present negotiations.

But for the presence of Israel, is it not a fact that the Russians now virtually control the Canal?

No, Sir. I do not subscribe to that view. It is inherently unlikely that the Russians would wish to intrude further into the Canal issue.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in certain cases deterioration has become critical to the point of write-off?

That is a serious possibility, if not a probability. They are very expensive and valuable cargoes, and the longer this goes on deterioration sets in. We are aware of this, and it lends point to our efforts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums he has agreed to lend Egypt, and on what terms; to what extent it is a condition precedent of such loans that British ships incarcerated in the Suez Canal are freed, and when; and whether he will make a statement on Anglo-Egyptian relations.

None, since the facility extended last spring was repaid. The second part of the Question, therefore, does not apply. Since the resumption of diplomatic relations with the United Arab Republic last December, our relations have been good, and I have every confidence that they will continue to be so.

Now that the Minister is evidently refusing loans to Egypt, will he assure the House that he will not resume negotiations for these loans so long as Egypt builds up her military bases for use by the Soviets against the Western allies in the Mediterranean?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that no application for a loan has been made or is under consideration. The answer to the second part is that any such application, if it were made, would have to be considered in all contexts, including indebtedness and every other question which affects such an application.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what economic aid or other assistance has been given to the Government of the United Arab Republic; and what progress has been made in implementing the desequestration of the property of British nationals and the payment of compensation for British property that has been nationalised.

No capital aid has been given. Technical assistance consists mainly of paying the costs of four United Arab Republic trainees in Britain. The release of sequestrated property under the 1959 Anglo-Egyptian agreement is proceeding steadily and we hope that property will soon begin to be released under the 1967 Exchange of Notes. Owners' estimates of nationalised property are with the United Arab Republic authorities.

When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to reach agreement on the nationalised property? Can he say specifically whether British nationals are now able to repatriate their own personal property under the terms of the 1967 White Paper?

I will take note of the second question and endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman a reply.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further assurances he has given to the Falkland Islands that the British Falkland Islands will not be handed over to Argentina or any other country against the wishes of the Falkland islanders, and will remain a British Crown Colony for so long as the majority of Falkland islanders so desire.

As has been made clear in the House on numerous occasions, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to transfer sovereignty over these islands against the wishes of the islanders.—[Vol. 761, c. 1458–67; Vol. 762, c. 3–5, Vol. 770, c. 103.]

In the light of that unequivocal assurance from the hon. Gentleman, what is the purpose of dispatching a Minister of the Crown to the Falkland Islands anyway? What will he do when he gets there?

These unequivocal assurances have been given repeatedly, and the dispatch of the Minister to the Falkland Islands is in accordance with a promise made to the House by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs some months ago.

Does not much of the confusion arise because Her Majesty's Government will insist on keeping the question of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands on the agenda of talks with the Argentine? Will they not take it off the agenda? It seems utterly pointless to keep it on.

We have always made clear that we have no doubts in our minds about British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, but reiteration of that has not removed Argentinian feeling on the matter. The Minister who is about to go to the Falkland Islands will be there for talks with the Falkland Islanders about Her Majesty's Government's attitude.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my question? Will the Government take this subject off the agenda of their discussions with the Argentine? Then the whole trouble would disappear.

The talks with the Argentine Government are to reach a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and the Argentine. That is our aim.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the curriculum of the Minister of State at the Foreign Office during his visit to the Falkland Islands.

As the Answer is rather long, I will, with permission circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My right hon. and noble Friend will meet members of the Islands Executive and Legislative Councils formally and informally. He will also meet as many representatives as possible of local organisations and of the community as a whole.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister to make it quite clear while he is there that at no time in future will dilution, or transfer, of sovereignty of the Falkland Islands be considered?

It has always been made clear in the House, and made clear repeatedly, that any transfer of sovereignty would take place only in circumstances in which the islanders were in agreement.

Bearing in mind that hitherto the Governor's Executive Council has been vowed to secrecy about the progress of negotiations with the Argentine about sovereignty, will the noble Lord be empowered to take the whole of the islands into Her Majesty's Government's confidence and to repeat to all representative organisations the assurance given this afternoon?

I am sure that what my noble Friend will tell the islanders will be the subject of consultation with the Governor of the islands and the Executive Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs why it is not the practice to publish figures for attendance of all- party Parliamentary delegations to inter national conferences such as Western European Union and the Council of Europe; and whether he will change this practice and make the information avail able to Members of Parliament on request.

The procedures of both the Western European Union and Council of Europe Assemblies provide for representation by either delegates or their alternates. There is, therefore, no special significance in the attendance of individual delegates, and I see no reason to change the present position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs what were the actual rates of travelling, hotel and subsistence allowances paid at the approved rates claimed for and paid to delegates attending the Western European Union Assembly on Tuesday, 15th October. 1968; and if he will give an assurance that no claims were made or paid to delegates who were not in attendance.

Delegates travelled either tourist class by air or first-class by sea and rail. Hotel expenses were at the rate of £6 15s. 0d. for each night in Paris, with subsistence of £4 2s. 8d. for each 24 hours of their stay.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was widely reported in the Press that, on the occasion of an important vote connected with the Common Market, it was alleged that none of the delegates were present and no quorum could be formed to take the vote, so that it had to be postponed to another day? If one cannot find the information about who should or should not be there—the Department will not give it and neither will the Library—how can one check whether they were there or not to draw their fees?

As has been often said in the House, we are not responsible for Press reports. My hon. Friend has already been told once in the House that on the occasion to which he refers the British delegation had full representation.

The Minister has referred to the rates payable to our delegates. Will he bear in mind that more and more, particularly since devaluation, the rates compare unfavourably with those paid to all other delegations to both the Council of Europe and W.E.U., and will he look into it again?

That is not my impression. The subsistence allowances paid to members of the British delegation are reasonable, and, while being no higher than many others, they are at an average level compared with those paid to delegations from other countries.

But is it not true that all delegates from the House sent to this Assembly have been sent because they are specially selected as being in favour of British entry into the Common Market? Is not that what it is all about? Is not that the significance if it? Are we now to understand that we are converting these amateur pro-Common marketeers into professionals?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Harmel proposals for closer European co-operation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he plans to take on the Belgian initiatives to link Great Britain closer to the countries of the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he plans to take to associate Great Britain more closely with the countries of the European Economic Community.

Full membership of the Communities remains our aim. Meanwhile, we must make progress towards closer European unity in other ways. M. Harmel's proposals for closer co-operation, particularly in foreign policy and defence, provide for this, and we are considering them in consultation with other European Governments.

Did the Foreign Secretary suggest that Britain and the Five should set up a study group to consider the Harmel proposals, thereby leaving France out of it? If so, is not that a rather divisive procedure from the point of view of European unity?

No. Sir; we have proposed further study of those proposals, but at the meeting which I had with representatives of the Five countries recently the French also were invited to be present. We have no wish to proceed without them, but we cannot take the view that, if they are not prepared to co-operate, we should do nothing.

Could not the proposals be discussed at the proposed conference of Heads of Government which the right hon. Gentlemen supported at The Hague? What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to bring the conference about?

I would not at present answer the second part of that question. If such a conference were held, these proposals, and, no doubt, other matters, could be discussed.

In view of France's obvious economic difficulties and the difficulties that the Community's agricultural policy is in, and also the fact that it is clearly desirable that there should be much closer co-operation between the countries of Western Europe and ourselves, is not this a most favourable time to adopt a new initiative and press on with negotiations to enter the Community?

As I explained, we are engaged in active work on M. Harmel's proposals, with French co-operation if it is available, but are prepared to go on if it is not.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the speech he made at The Hague. Do I understand from his reply that no invitations have gone out for the Foreign Ministers to meet in order to push forward this idea?

Not so far, but the Foreign Ministers met quite recently at the same time as the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting.

Is not the problem here to get outside the veto and the European treaties, and that if we are seeking co-operation with the Five that is not subject to the veto this will have to be in the fields of defence and political consultations? Does the Foreign Secretary agree, and will he say what he is doing about it?

That is what I said in my first answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest position regarding the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the mission of Dr. Gunnar Jarring to the Middle East; and when it is estimated that Dr. Jarring will formally report to the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been achieved in implementing the resolution on the Middle East passed by the Security Council last November.

Since I spoke on 31st October in the debate on the Address, the Foreign Ministers of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic have returned to their capitals from New York. Each has expressed his readiness to continue discussions with Dr. Jarring, and it is our hope and expectation that the exchanges begun in New York will be resumed either there or elsewhere.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Government will have widespread support in their continued attempts to bring home to all the parties in this tragic situation their responsibilities for ensuring the success of the resolution of November last year?

Yes, Sir. I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It has been our endeavour ever since we sponsored the resolution to draw the attention of all parties to actions they can take which would help Dr. Jarring in his work.

I support all the efforts Dr. Jarring is making, but is it not a fact that the military situation is steadily deteriorating day by day and that we cannot allow it to drift on month after month without further diplomatic initiatives in the Security Council or elsewhere?

I realise that Dr. Jarring has not been able to make more than very disappointing progress so far. My noble Friend, Lord Caradon, is in close touch with him and his colleagues, the representatives of the permanent members of the Security Council, as to ways in which Dr. Jarring might be assisted in his mission.

Have Jordan, the U.A.R. and Israel signified their acceptance in principle of the Security Council resolution of last November?

Yes, Sir. There is a general acceptance in principle. The problem now is what actions are needed in order to see that the whole of the resolution is put into effect.

Will my right hon. Friend keep a close watch on the deteriorating situation because of the increasing build-up of equipment on the Arab side coming from Russia? Some reassurance on this point for Israel's future is also relevant.

This is a consideration that is not only very much in our minds but in the minds of everyone concerned with the problem. I repeat what I said in the debate on the Address, that it is not possible for those not immediately concerned to solve the matter without effective help from the parties that are immediately concerned in the dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy towards the representation of China at the United Nations.

It has been stated on many occasions in this House and in the United Nations General Assembly that Her Majesty's Government support the immediate seating of the Chinese People's Republic in the United Nations. Although Chinese treatment of British subjects in the past year has been disgraceful, we do not intend to allow this to deflect us from maintaining a policy which we believe to be right.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he explain why, in view of this, the Government continue to regard the admission of China to the United Nations as, in United Nations terminology, an important question requiring a two-thirds majority?

I do not see how it can be denied that this is a question of importance under Article 18(2) of the Charter. Opinion in the United Nations is deeply divided on this, as the reports of the voting in at least the past two years clearly show. It is for this reason that, while we support the seating of the C.P.R. in the United Nations, we adhere to our decision also to regard it as an important question.

Are not the Government aware that even if Peking were invited to take a seat at the United Nations it would refuse so to do while Formosa has a seat there? Is not it false to keep raising the hope that a seat for Peking in the United Nations would ease the situation in the Far East?

One cannot assume what the hon. Gentleman has said. We must wait and see.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposal he has put forward since the Soviet occupation of Czecho-slovakia to strengthen the treaty arrangements in the Persian Gulf; and if he will make a statement.

No such strengthening is required. The deplorable invasion of Czechoslovakia is a grave setback to détente in international affairs but has no immediate bearing on the factors which led to Her Majesty's Government's decision to withdraw our military presence and terminate the existing treaty relationships by the end of 1971.

Are we not creating a vacuum in the Persian Gulf? What discussions are the Government having with our allies, including the United States and our Continental allies, with regard to strengthening our position east of Suez and helping us to prevent a vacuum being created there?

I do not agree that a vacuum will be created. We have until the end of 1971 to strengthen the States in the area and help them, if they require our help, to create a strong and viable union. Their safety, stability and peace are best maintained not by our military presence there indefinitely, but by their own independence resting on the good will of their neighbours, some of which are very powerful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the further steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to try to secure a cease-fire in Vietnam.

Those directly concerned in the war are seeking ways to enable the wider talks to be started in Paris, which we all hope could lead to a cease-fire and a political settlement. I do not believe Her Majesty's Government have an immediate rôle to play in these negotiations: but all the parties to them know that we are ready to help whenever this would be useful.

Since both the United States and the Communists, the National Liberation Front and the North Vietnamese, realise that there can be no military solution to the war, is there now a chance that the South Vietnamese Administration will attend the Paris talks so that the conference can proceed and find a solution to South Vietnam's future?

My hon. Friend may have noticed that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 7th November, expressed the very clear view that the South Vietnamese Government should attend the Paris talks, and I repeat that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will introduce legislation reforming the law governing the granting of British passports.

In the United Kingdom the grant of passports is a Prerogative function. If the reform which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is the introduction of safeguards against the arbitrary refusal of passports, a step has already been taken in this direction by the setting up of the Cairns Committee to review passport refusals connected with the illegal declaration of independence in Southern Rhodesia.

Is it not intolerable that a law that was originally designed in the thirteenth century to keep the clergy from visiting Rome should today be used to imprison citizens in this island? Surely the very least that the Foreign Secretary and his helpers can do is to set up an independent tribunal to which appeal can be made or to allow a form of hearing so that the rules of natural justice can be observed in the matter?

The hon. Gentleman may find the system intolerable, but it has been the position of successive Governments that this must remain a Prerogative function, and on the whole there has been little complaint about it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose passports happen to have been issued elsewhere than in London are sometimes treated differently for visa purposes in many countries from those whose passports were issued in London? Would he not agree that this is an irrelevancy and try to seek some agreement?

We are looking into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the Nigerian civil war; and what action he is taking to end it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement regarding his efforts to promote a settlement in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the efforts made by Her Maejsty's Government to secure an end to the war in Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to help in bringing to an end the Nigerian civil war; and whether he will make a statement.

Since my statement of 22nd October, I have discussed the position with Chief Enahoro, General Gowon's special representative, who has also seen my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Chief Enahoro confirmed to me his Government's willingness to begin negotiations at any time provided that the principle of an undivided Nigeria was accepted. We continue to support the efforts of the Organisation for African Unity Committee on Nigeria in seeking to bring the two sides together. By contributing to the team of international observers we are also trying to re-assure the Ibo people about the intentions of the Federal Government towards them and thereby to make a solution easier.

Is it not possible for at least some of the world Powers, including Britain, to say to both sides, "You must stop this bloody civil war and accept in a limited area and for a limited time an international force"?

We have on two occasions promoted talks with a view to a settlement. It has not been through lack of interest on our part that they have not been successful. I believe that the Powers in the best position to do this are those in the Organisation of African Unity.

What recent talks have Her Majesty's Government had with the French Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman in any case consider taking a fresh initiative for urgent discussions with the French and Russian Governments in the hope that at least some voluntary limitation of arms supply can be secured as soon as possible?

This matter was discussed not long ago at a meeting of Western European Union. The question of getting a joint agreement on the supply of arms presents very great difficulties indeed.

Since the policy of subduing Biafra quickly has manifestly failed, and since Biafra may grow into another Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend immediately ask the three other supplying nations to stop arms to both sides and to enforce a cease-fire?

Unfortunately, this is not only a question of Governmental supplies of arms but also of arms from some very miscellaneous sources. Inter-Governmental agreements on this would not, I am afraid, result in a general stoppage of the supply of arms.

With the efforts of Chief Enaharo, is it not a fact that the war could have been nearer an honourable settlement on both sides but for the mischievous intervention from French sources in Gabon and the Ivory Coast? Will my right hon. Friend squash for all time the mischievous claim "genocide" in this case and place in the Library the statement by international observers?

Ten thousand a day dying.

I believe that the statement by the international observers is already to be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I will make sure that it is indeed available to hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) is quite right. The story about genocide has been proved beyond doubt to be completely false.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the questions which have just been asked reflect the deep feeling in this country and the Commonwealth about the protracted nature of the war? Is he further aware that the war and the suffering are being protracted by the supply of arms which is said to be coming from France? Whatever the difficulties, will he not now exercise some initiative and endeavour to get international agreement on the question of arms supplies?

I am sure that there is not a single right hon. or hon. Member who does not share the concern about the prolongation of the war and the suffering it involves. If I could see that an approach of the kind suggested would be useful, I would make it. If I am cautious, it is because I do not wish to raise hopes which might be disappointed.

Why will the Government not plainly state that they will not send any more arms to the Federal Government? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great fear among Nigerians and the horror of our people when they read in their newspapers not long ago that we were being asked for more arms by the Federal Government?

The reason why Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to refuse to supply the Nigerian Government with arms has been stated on several occasions in the House. I will state it briefly again. We believe that this rebellion was a disastrous and tragic error and that it would not have been right for us to cut off arms to a Commonwealth country whose traditional supplier we were because it was faced with a rebellion. To have done so would have amounted to giving support to rebellion and thereby to all the suffering for which it is responsible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received from the Federal Government of Nigeria to authorise increased shipments of arms to Nigeria; and what reply he has given.

The Federal Government continue to seek part of their requirements for military supplies in this country, and it remains our policy to approve the export of carefully controlled quantities of weapons of the kind traditionally supplied to the Nigerian Armed Forces. It is not in the public interest for details of such requests to be disclosed.

Is my hon. Friend saying that if the Federal Government of Nigeria requested supplies of offensive weapons of a more sophisticated nature than those previously supplied, we would not agree to supply them?

As I have said, our policy is to continue the export of carefully controlled quantities of weapons of the kind traditionally supplied.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman realises that his reply means nothing at all, that he could go on supplying arms and possibly try to match the Russians, that the formula which he has produced is a formula which permits unlimited supplies? Has not the time come for the Government to re-examine the whole matter morally, politically and from the point of view of power politics? When they have made a complete nonsense of so much of their policy, is it not time to think again?

If the right hon. Gentleman will study the terms of my reply, he will see that the supply is very carefully limited. The reasons for the policy-have been given to the House on more than one occasion, and I see no reason to depart from them.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a European initiated arms race in this part of West Africa and that this will inevitably result in military escalation? Does he not agree that in the new circumstances our position is becoming increasingly untenable? Will he consider the whole subject of arms supplies to this part of West Africa, preferably in consultation with those other European countries engaged in this traffic?

I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine). Her Majesty's Government's part in this matter has not been confined to the traditional supply of arms to the Nigerian Government. We have been instrumental in carrying out a great deal of relief work, in interesting the United Nations in this matter, and in promoting negotiations between the sides, negotiations which have failed for reasons unhappily beyond our control.

Accepting that Britain has played a great part in supplies of relief, particularly to those whom British bullets have driven into the bush, can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government are satisfied that they have derived all the political advantage and have been able to exert all the undoubted influence that they have always claimed the shipment of arms has made possible?

I do not know whether that is how the right hon. Gentleman regards it, but that is not how I regard it. I believe that this rebellion was fraught with dangers not only for Nigeria, but for the future of Africa as a whole. It was that consideratoin rather than those things mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman that underlay our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff of the Rhodesian Political Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have personal experience of Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made since the amalgamation of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices in the structure and personnel of departments concerned with Rhodesia; and what are the qualifications, and experience of Rhodesia, of the present staff of those departments.

Both the Rhodesia Political and Rhodesia Economic departments of the former Commonwealth Office have been incorporated in the new Foreign and Commonwealth Office with only two minor changes in staffing. Among the members of these departments and the superintending Undersecretaries there are five people who have had personal experience of Rhodesia, and two other senior staff who have worked on Rhodesian affairs for several years.

In the circumstances, is this adequate? Whatever the Minister without Portfolio may have to say later, does not the Secretary of State think that, if he chose more people with a more profound experience of Rhodesia, particularly of the tribal trust areas, some of the current misunderstandings might be eased? What encouragement is he giving to the members of the residual Mission in Salisbury to travel and learn?

The latter part of that supplementary question might be better asked of my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio. On the first part, the answer is "No'. I have every confidence in those working in my Rhodesia political and economic departments. A substantial proportion of them have either personal experience or detailed knowledge of Rhodesia.

May we take it that Government policy is now being decided as a result of these changes with more regard for Britain's world position, which demands an early settlement with Rhodesia, and less regard for an obsolete colonialism?

I am glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman is discarding an obsolete colonialism, but I do not accept the implications of his question.

Is it not a fact that this Department, including the High Commission, misled the Government in every single assessment it made and that that has been a great deal of the cause of the trouble? When this happens, is there not a case for some change of personalities?

My hon. and learned Friend is incorrect in the first question, so that the second does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is being taken with other countries to identify and charge the murderer who caused the loss of 66 lives in the British European Airways aircraft lost through a bomb explosion off the Turkish coast on 12th October, 1967.

Members of the Metropolitan Police visited Athens and Nicosia last spring in connection with the accident and the Greek and Cyprus Governments were informed of the visit.

As the reason for the accident has recently been made clear, was this not a more villainous crime than the great train robbery, and should not every effort be made internationally to bring the culprits to justice and so deter others from committing this diabolical form of mass murder?

No doubt all concerned here and elsewhere are alerted to obtain the necessary evidence, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General informed the House on 21st October, the Director of Public Prosecutions has advised that at present no evidence is available to justify criminal proceedings against any individual.

What steps have been taken to safeguard British aircraft in transit through Greece, or other countries, in future?

Questions of that character are best directed to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will refer to the Duncan Committee the proposal that the same conditions of pension and retirement apply to the Diplomatic Service as to the Armed Services.

Conditions of service generally, including pension and retirement matters, are not part of the specific task of the Duncan Committee, but the committee can certainly be expected to keep the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind, to the extent that it may be relevant to their work.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. In view of the value of cross-posting between commerce and the Foreign Service, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it might well be of advantage for earlier retirement from the Foreign Service to be possible?

Will my right hon. Friend consider the rule that feminine members of our Diplomatic Service have to resign when they get married, a rule which is contrary to European convention as well as common sense?

I would not preclude that consideration from the ambit of the Committee's deliberations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has studied the recent issue of the United States information agency's journal, Problems of Communism, a copy of which has been sent to him, which was devoted to documenting political, literary and religious dissent in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will initiate a similar study and publication by a United Kingdom Government agency.

This issue is being read with interest in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office together with information from a wider range of sources. It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to publish controversial material about the internal affairs of other countries; this subject is best handled by the press and by academic bodies.

Will the right hon. Gentleman abandon the passive doctrine of "Hear no evil and see no evil" in matters lying outside the immediate sphere of Government relations with the Soviet Union and adopt the same robust, overt and critical attitude towards persecuted minorities in the Soviet Union that the Soviet Union adopts towards persecuted minorities outside its frontiers?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that our attitude to any form of discrimination, especially on religious grounds, does not lack robustness. But the point of the Question is whether in addition to studying the material, which we are doing, we will issue a publication similar to that of the United States. I have said that it is not our practice to do so.

As this week is being celebrated within Human Rights Year as Prisoners of Conscience Week, will my right hon. Friend try a little harder and accept that questions of human rights are the concern of the whole international community? Will he at least press for the speedy implementation of the draft convention on religious discrimination?

Certainly. United Kingdom representatives take a full part in discussions on these subjects on the human rights bodies of the United Nations, and I take full note of what my hon. Friend has said about the significance of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.

I have been asked to reply.