asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to wards peace in the Nigerian Civil War and the acceptance by both sides of a Commonwealth peace-keeping force.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent progress towards a settlement of the Nigerian Biafran conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding his efforts to secure a cease-fire in the Nigerian civil war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about recent steps to attempt to end the war in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has taken, or now proposes to take, an initiative designed to achieve the acceptance by Nigeria of an international peace-keeping force.

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State has been in Lagos for the past week continuing our dis- cussions with the Federal Government about the possibilities of progress to wards the end of the fighting and more effective relief. Lord Shepherd, who is having another meeting with General Gowan today, will be returning very shortly to report to me. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has visited Addis Ababa and has discussed these problems with His Majesty the Emperor of Ethiopia in the light of Her Majesty's Government's intention to assist the Organisation of African Unity in any way possible. All concerned know that we are ready to help in any way to bring about negotiations. We have already said we would contribute to a Commonwealth peace-keeping force, should both sides desire one.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about the Under-Secretary's reported visit to the Vatican? Is there any chance of a Christmas cease fire, temporary though that may be? What chance is there of the Federal Government offering positions for some form of peace-keeping force unilatterally, in their territory?

I cannot say anything definite about the possibilities of a Christmas truce, but this is, of course, one way in which one might get the beginnings of a ceasefire. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, about a peace keeping force in Federal territory, I believe that, if a ceasefire and some meeting of the parties could be arranged, it would be possible to make progress on these lines.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Brockway and my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), have, with great courage, just been to Biafra, and that they report that Colonel Ojukwu is prepared to accept an immediate ceasefire by both sides, and also the idea that there should be a United Nations peace-keeping force in the whole area?

As to a United Nations peace-keeping force, we would gladly co-operate in any peace-keeping force which could be arranged, whether it were Commonwealth or Commonwealth and other countries. At present, it has not proved at all easy to make any progress through United Nations channels on this.

I know, of course, that my hon. and right hon. Friends have made this visit and I am hoping to hear from them about it. However, I am afraid that I must notice that Biafra Radio, on 12th December, announced that, if there were a ceasefire, they would insist on going to the conference table as a separate, independent nation. That is to say, that condition is still attached.

Since it often seems to be the case that it is Colonel Ojukwu—this applied in the case of the land corridor and day relief flights—who is the stumbling block, would it be worth inviting the African States, Zambia and Tanzania, which have recognised Biafra, to appeal to him to allow an international force between the combatants in this area?

I should like to consider that suggestion. We are trying to find any way in which we can make progress. It is certainly true that it is the attitude of Colonel Ojukwu that blocks so many possibilities.

Would my right hon. Friend accept from all of us that we welcome the initiative of the Under-Secretary's visit? Will the Government give first priority to the desperate need for a cease-fire? May I call my right hon. Friend's attention to two new dangers that might have calamitous results in the near future? First of all, the supplies of home-grown food—yams and cassave—are running out very rapidly and there is already an outbreak of measles which may amount to an epidemic in the near future. We are assured by doctors, responsible people, in Biafra, that, if this happens, it will have a devastating effect on already under-nourished and half-starved children. May I ask the Government to use their influence with both sides, in which we will join them, in getting a cease-fire, to avoid what could be a terrible human tragedy early in the new year?

I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I am sure that he is right to lay the chief emphasis on a cease-fire and relief—relief against famine and relief against disease. The House knows the measures we have taken on relief and what the difficulties are in getting the materials where they are required. My right hon. and noble Friend was concerned with a cease-fire. It is not the first attempt we have made. This is a continuous process; and we shall continue to do all we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take further steps to bring about an international cessation of arms supplies to the combatants in the Nigerian civil war.

As the House knows, we should be ready to co-operate in any enforceable international arms embargo which could be arranged in the context of an agreement to end the fighting.

Will my right hon. Friend, in order to bring this about, now issue a public and specific invitation to the Governments of France, Portgual and the Soviet Union to join Britain in trying to bring about an international embargo on the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian civil war?

We have already raised this matter with some of the countries supplying arms to either side. The Russians made it clear that they would continue to support the Federal Government in any event. Those who are supplying Colonel Ojukwu deny that they are doing so. That is why it seems that in this situation if an embargo is to be effective it has to be policed at the point of entry into Nigeria, and that is why I said that it must be seen together with the possibilities of a cease-fire.

In view of the great concern in the House and of many of our constituents, will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Prime Minister to try to put the Nigerian question at the top of the agenda for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting in January?

I do not think I can preempt the agenda for the conference at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from fellow Governments of the European Free Trade Area Association about the deposits required against imports recently announced by Her Majesty's Government.

We have had no formal representations from our European Free Trade Association partners. Discussion of our measures is continuing in the European Free Trade Association Council.

When will the tribunal decide whether our action is legal? Has not the action of Her Majesty's Government undermined the concept of E.F.T.A.?

I disagree very strongly with that suggestion. As the House has been informed, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade fully discussed the scheme at the end of the Vienna Conference, and it was generally agreed that we had to take some step about imports and that the measure proposed was perhaps the least damaging in this context. As to the date, I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by a tribunal. This question is being discussed in the E.F.T.A. Council. I could not give a date when the Council will conclude that consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what visits he proposes to make to Commonwealth countries in the coming 12 months.

As the hon. Member knows, I have recently returned from a visit to Pakistan and India. I am now considering my programme for the coming year.

I assumed that the Secretary of State would be considering his programme. The Question asks him what visits he is proposing. Anyhow, assuming that he goes to Commonwealth countries, could he sound out the Commonwealth countries on the proposal for an Atlantic Free Trade Area, which is receiving more and more consideration in many countries?

That is another question.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further preparations he is making for a meeting of European Prime Ministers for advancing European unity in fields not covered by the Treaty of Rome.

M. Harmel's proposals for advancing European unity in fields out side the Treaties of Rome have been the subject of recent exchanges with a number of Governments in preparation for further discussion at the next Ministerial meeting of Western European Union on 6th and 7th February.

Does that Answer amount to "No"? Has there been any progress at all? The Question asks for a statement on progress. It was 10 weeks ago that these proposals were made. Can the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us as to what progress has been made, particularly on the proposal to increase co-operation in monetary affairs?

It was clear at the end of the previous W.E.U. meeting, where M. Harmel made these proposals, that the next definitive step would be a further discussion at the next meeting of Western European Union. In the interval between the two meetings, officials of many countries are concerned in working out their proposals. It was never envisaged that there would be further meetings before that I have announced for February.

Have not the prospects for a meeting of the type referred to in Question No. 38 improved a little recently? For example, is there not evidence that the Germans would be willing to attend such a meeting? Will my right hon. Friend say plainly that the Government support the idea?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to a suggestion for a Meeting of Prime Ministers. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said at The Hague, while we would welcome this proposal, there would be no point in organising such a meeting until we could have a conference that could produce results. Until the further meeting in the context of Western European Union, which we believe to be the right context for these discussions, it would be too soon to organise such a conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his discussions with the Argentine Government about the future of the Falkland Islands are now concluded; and with what result.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recent visit by the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the visit to the Falkland Islands by the Minister of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he will make a statement on the visit of the Minister of State to the Falkland Islands;

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the future of the Falk land Islands and on the discussions held by the Minister of State with the islanders.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will exclude the question of Sovereignty over the Falkland Isles from the agenda of discussions with the Government of Argentina.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper on the negotiations with Argentia about the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a White Paper on the talks which the Minister of State had on his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government have not sought and are not seeking to persuade the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands to accept Argentine sovereignty.

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

I have nothing to add to my statement, and to the Answers I gave to questions on this matter on 11th December, and subsequently in the debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, c. 424–34 and 608–13.]

Does that Answer mean, then, that negotiations involving the sovereignty of the Islands are still continuing? Does that mean that the Government have not grasped the fact that public opinion in this country simply will not permit them either to bribe or bully the Falklanders out of the Commonwealth and into the dominion of a foreign Power?

The answer to the first part of the question is, "Yes, Sir"; these negotiations are continuing, as I have often explained to the House. The answer to the second part of the question is that there has not been and will not be any attempt to bribe, pressurise or persuade the Falklanders against their judgment.

In the interests of good relations with Argentina, would it not be best to be frank now and make it clear that sovereignty cannot be part of any agreement in prospect, thus obviating a serious misunderstanding later?

I have stated our position so often and so clearly that I do not think the Argentine Government are under any misunderstanding.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in fact he does not state the position clearly? He creates confusion and dismay by every statement that is made from the Treasury bench. Was it not folly to lead Argentina to think that sovereignty might be transferred irrespective of the right of self-determination? Will not this do great damage to Anglo-Argentine relations?

The hon. Gentleman asked that Question during the debate, and I answered it then. We have made it clear that the issue of sovereignty is under discussion but that we would not make a cession of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Has any progress been made on the purely practical question of communications between the Falkland Islands and Buenos Aires?

That is another very important issue in the discussions, but the discussions are not yet concluded.

Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that since our debates the Argentine Government have issued a statement saying that the sovereignty of these Islands should be transferred to them without further consultation with the islanders and without the consent of the islanders? Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that this report appeared in the Daily Express on Saturday? Is it a true report or a false report?

It is a true report, but it adds nothing new to the already known position. This was why I explained to the House in my statement that there is a divergence of view between the Argentine Government and ourselves.

Is it true, as is suggested, that there was this proposed sell-out of the Falkland Islanders in order to bring off a big arms deal—for the Government to sell arms to the Argentine?

No. The hon. Gentleman keeps making up new fairy tales of his own. In any case, there is a later Question about this.

As negotiations are to continue, can the Secretary of State say whether any agreement that is reached with the Argentine will be put before the Falkland Islanders before it is signed?

Yes, Sir; I think I can say that, although this still lies in the future, because the main purpose of my noble Friend's visit recently was to describe progress and explain the way the Government were handling this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many officials in his Department are, under regulations, entitled at public expense to first-class air travel tickets; and how many such tickets were issued in the last convenient 12 months.

174 officers in Grades 1–3 of the Diplomatic Service are so en titled. The facility is also extended to 344 officers of Grade 4 for air journeys lasting more than four hours.

During the 12 months ending September 1968, 265 single and 368 return tickets were issued to these officers and their dependants.

I am obliged to the Minister for that reply. Is not that a large number of civil servants entitled to the concession? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the prestige of this country would be better served if Members of Parliament called upon to go on official delegations of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union were given first-class travel? If he agrees about that but does not want extra expense, will the right hon. Gentleman see the Chancellor of the Exchequer about cutting off a few of those he has named at the lowest level?

Travel arrangements for C.P.A. and I.P.U. delegations are largely matters for the organisations concerned, but I shall look into the question. Any change in the first-class travel entitlement of civil servants would apply to the Home Civil Service as well as the Diplomatic Service and would require a change of regulations. This would be a matter for my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal. I should stress that most of the diplomats going on these journeys usually have to enter negotiations very soon after they arrive, and the advantage of being able to work on the journey is not inconsiderable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations are now taking place with the States in the Persian Gulf about the arrangements for their external affairs and defence after 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations now taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the Trucial States and Bahrain relevant to their defences and status after 1971.

As I told the hon. Gentleman on 1st April, we are engaged in discussion with the States concerned about the implications of the decision on with drawal.—[Vol. 762, c. 2–3.]

While these States should be given every encouragement to work together for a stable future, will the Government none the less make clear that the United Kingdom will continue to help preserve peace in the area and to prevent any disruption of oil supplies?

I agree that the States themselves should be encouraged to come to the right decision about the form of union or association which will suit them. We have indicated to them that we stand ready at all times, at their request, to advise and help them in achieving this aim.

We consider that the best way to main tain peace and stability in the area lies in enabling these States to stand on their own feet and also in bringing together their more powerful neighbours in an association and in support of the States once they have formed a union.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in all the circumstances, developments in the Gulf since the Government's decision to withdraw have been hopeful and constructive, and it is regrettable that uncertainty should have been created by the irresponsible statements of the Opposition that they will upset it if they are returned to power?

It is a most encouraging and promising fact that, since our announcement that we would withdraw before the end of 1971, the Rulers and the peoples have come together and have had discussions which progressively show a constructive intention. It is true that any suggestion that we shall remain in the Gulf in a military posture after 1971 cannot assist the discussions which are now proceeding so helpfully there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following his official statement to the United Nations General Assembly on 19th October, 1968, what new proposals he has regarding the with drawing of United Kingdom reservations to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

It is proposed that a revised Declaration, substantially reducing our existing reservations to acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, should be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General on 1st January, 1969. As on previous occasions, the text will be published as a White Paper.

First, does that need legislation? Second, has any Communist country accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, with or without reservations?

I regret that I should need notice of the second part of that supplementary question. On the first part, I am advised that it does not need legislation, but the House will be in a position to debate the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he is taking to secure the release of British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take further steps to obtain the release of British ships detained in the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations to free the British ships at present contained by the Egyptian Government in the Suez Canal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest efforts to reach agreement with the United Arab Republic and Israel on ways in which the ships in the Suez Canal could be released.

Since my reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) on 18th November, we have had further contacts in Cairo with the United Arab Republic authorities and in New York with a number of interested parties. We have also kept in touch with the commercial interests involved.—[Vol. 773, c. 867–9.]

To what extent does silting now act as an impediment to the freeing of these ships? Second, what action is proposed to be taken, either by the United Nations or by the maritime Powers, to free these ships? Third, what compensation will lie against the United Arab Republic for the illegal detention of the ships?

I should like the hon. Gentleman to put a Question down about silting. Information about the technical position is not immediately available to me today. As regards United Nations intervention, as I have said, the United Nations could not intervene here for the purpose of physical clearance without first going to the Security Council, which would set in train a debate which might exacerbate the situation and make more difficult the already difficult task which the special representative, Dr. Jarring, has.

As regards compensation, soon after the end of the June war, Her Majesty's Gov- ernment indicated to the U.A.R. and to Israel that they held in reserve their power to claim compensation for damage or loss sustained by the Government of by United Kingdom nationals.

Finally, as regards the position of the maritime Powers, a shipowners' committee was formed in Amsterdam in July, and this has been empowered to negotiate with the Cairo authorities with a view to the clearance of the Canal. A representative of the committee is now engaged in these negotiations in Cairo.

Order. This is not an Adjournment debate. Answers, however praiseworthy, must be reasonably brief.

Can the right hon. Gentleman recall any previous British Government which acquiesced in the wrongful detention of British ships for 18 months?

We can all call to mind the fiasco of Suez.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in collaboration with the Russian Government and other interested parties to implement the Security Council resolution of 22nd November, 1967, calling for freedom of navigation throughout inter national waters in the Middle East, including the Suez Canal.

The resolution dealt with all the problems raised by the Arab-Israel war, including freedom of navigation. These problems are closely inter-related and seem unlikely to be solved outside a general settlement in the area. We actively support Dr. Jarring's efforts to promote such a settlement.

Are there not common interests here for Britain and the Soviet Union, and could not both use their respective influences? Second, could my right hon. Friend give the House an estimate of the total cost to us of the closure of the Canal, with particular reference to the balance of payments figures?

All countries have, as we have, an interest in the speedy clearance of the Canal. It is possible that the permanent members of the Security Council will at some stage consider this as a matter of particular importance to them, and one of the four is the Soviet Union. As regards losses to us sustained since the closure of the Canal, the estimate which has been made is that in the last six months of 1967 the loss to us on the balance of trade ran at about £20 million a month, but, as commerce has adapted itself to the changed situation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—the loss has declined to about £.5 million a month, which is serious enough in all conscience.

Order. Answers must be reasonably brief.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet received the report from the High Commissioner for Nigeria on his inquiries into Mr. Joseph Combes's claim for compensation first made against the High Commission in 1966.

The High Commissioner for Nigeria has now received authority from Lagos for the settlement in full of

claim and I under stand that a remittance was posted to Mr. Combes on 10th December.

I am most grateful for that reply, as will be my constituent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will support proposals made in the Western European Union for the establishment of a European naval task force, centred on a British carrier or amphibious ship, in the Mediterranean.

Our maritime forces in the Mediterranean are declared to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which is currently studying how to improve the effectiveness of allied forces in the area.

Does that reply indicate that the right hon. Gentleman has considered the proposal made in W.E.U. or not? Does not he consider that it would have very definite advantages, in that European vessels in the Mediterranean can undertake tasks that the Sixth Fleet, with its nuclear weapons, cannot so effectively undertake?

I think the hon. Gentleman knows that all member Governments pay great regard to the proposals made by their Parliamentarians in Western European Union. But N.A.T.O. policy is not for us to make unilaterally; it is made in the Alliance as a whole. As I have explained to the hon. Gentleman, the whole question of the Mediterranean is under study.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will protest to the Soviet Government about the large numbers of Soviet vessels interfering with British and allied naval activity off the coast of Great Britain.

There has so far been no cause for a formal protest to the Soviet Government.

Is it a fact that a Soviet guided missile ship hove to some distance off the West coast of Scotland not many weeks ago? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the purpose of such Soviet activities are? Does he agree with the British admiral who described them as a "damned nuisance"?

The navy of the Soviet Union, like other navies, is entitled to freedom of passage on the high seas. Its activities off the British coast are closely observed by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Questions of detailed encounters are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the recent economic crisis, he will cease to subsidise "Britain in Europe" and other organisations of this type supporting the Common Market.

Since it remains the aim of Her Majesty's Government to join the European Economic Community as a full member, I consider that this expenditure is fully justified.

By the taxpayer, it seems. Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that growing numbers of people inside and outside the House are concerned about the way in which this money is spent largely on organising dinners and luncheons—to keep up the spirits of those concerned, I suppose? How many more rebuffs does my right hon. Friend intend to take before he decides to stop this waste of money?

I do not think that a question of changing the Government's foreign and economic policy arises in connection with the relatively small grants for these organisations. These small grants are made to pursue a proper understanding of the British point of view in Europe and to bring our relations with Europe closer. We find them a convenient and useful way of pursuing those objectives.

Is there any precedent for the Government spending money to subsidise propaganda organisations which happen to support the Government's policy?

I would not call them propaganda organisations in support of Government policy. There have been many precedents of small assistance to non-Governmental, non-political organisations being a useful way of encouraging discussion on the matter concerned.

Whatever the Government's policy, is not it quite improper for the Foreign Office to use the taxpayers' money to subsidise controversial private propaganda organisations? Could not a very useful economy be made here?

I do not see them as private propaganda organisations. The grants have been paid over a number of years and have been approved in the Estimates each year. There is no question of any hole in the corner business. The Government, like previous Governments, have found this a useful and convenient way of getting our point of view across in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has made to the appeal from the Government of Antigua for assistance on the occasion of the break-down of their electrical power plant on 22nd November.

Her Majesty's Government immediately responded to the Government of Antigua's request for interim help in this internal emergency by using their friendly offices in neighbouring countries. The nearest source of suitable and readily available equipment was Canada and generators were flown from there to operate in a temporary capacity. We explored the possibility of Her Majesty's Forces in the area providing emergency equipment, but this did not prove possible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what Canada sent amounted to 0· 3 megawatt, and that what is required is over 6 megawatts? Is he aware that this grave emergency has continued for 24 days, and that, following the survey by Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, Hawker Siddeley have informed the Antigua Government that it could rapidly restore a major part of the power station if the money were forthcoming? Will the British Government help?

We are extremely anxious to help in every possible way, but I do not know whether it would be feasible to extend financial aid in this case. I should like to discuss the matter with representatives of this highly reputable firm, and arrangements are being made for such a discussion to take place at my office.

This is not a very satis factory state of affairs. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Board of Trade is sympathetic to the idea of giving help now, for good commercial reasons? Can he give the House an assurance that this will be discussed straight away?

Indeed. Since I was given notice that the Question was raised, I have done my best to look into the details. It is an emergency. It is not a simple situation, but I am anxious that every thing possible should be done, by Government agency if that proves right, to help this excellent firm, which is anxious to put the matter right.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will give financial and other support to the proposed International Institute of Technology in Europe, now under consideration at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Her Majesty's Government will contribute £10,000 towards the costs of the preparatory year.

That remark will be greeted with some enthusiasm, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that the time has arrived when a White Paper should be prepared to set out the British rô le in European collaboration in science and technology, so that many people will have an indication of exactly how serious our intentions are?

That goes rather further than the original Question. As my hon. Friend knows, the preparatory year for the proposed Institute is a time to try to get the various different ideas sorted out, and we have a number of important points to put to the other countries during this period. I will consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology about a White Paper.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, after the Prime Minister's great speech at Strasbourg about the technological communities he was going to establish, £10,000 is a pretty derisory sum? Following our pulling out of the E.L.D.O. project and the C.E.R.N. reactor, is not it shabby?

It is rather unlike the hon. Gentleman not to have informed himself before asking the question, be cause the proposal, which stems from M. Giscard d'Estaing, is quite different from that of the European technological centre proposed by my right hon. Friend. We have reservations about this later proposal, because it does not fit the ideas of United Kingdom management education and has not been received with great enthusiasm by British industry. That is why we want in the preparatory year to see if we can sort out the differences of approach.

In the context of closer European co-operation, has my right hon. Friend seen a somewhat angry statement from Dr. Luns of the Nether lands about the British Government's reaction to proposals for closer links with the Six? Can he comment on that?

I am not familiar with the exact content of this one of several statements by Dr. Luns. If my hon. Friend will let me have a copy, I will send him my comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which other Latin-American countries Her Majesty's Government have concluded agreements on technical or other forms of mutual aid co-operation similar to that concluded with the Republic of El Salvador in June, 1967.

Her Majesty's Government have concluded with Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Peru agreements or understandings on technical co-operation similar to that concluded with the Republic of El Salvador.

I am sure that many hon. Members and other people in the country will be delighted to hear of this progress, and I hope that it will go still further in other Latin-American countries. With regard to the provision for the extension of scholarships, can my right hon. Friend say whether anything is being done by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that more scholarships will be available to the countries under these agreements?

I cannot say without notice, and I am not sure whether that is a question for me. My right hon. Friend might consider tabling a Question and ascertaining which Minister is responsible for answering it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose in the United Nations the establishment of an independent supervisory and investigatory system for the sanctions policy against Rhodesia.

I have been asked to reply.

The Security Council Resolution of May, 1968, already contains provisions designed to make the supervision of sanctions more effective.

While I welcome the news of increased pressure by the Security Council on the countries from which sanctions busters are operating, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he would not agree that independent supervisory and investigatory machinery is essential to the success of the sanctions policy?

The step taken by the United Nations in setting up this new machinery was a very important one. The body has held its first meeting. I think we must wait to see how it gets on. I agree with the importance of international supervision if the sanctions policy is to be effective.

What information have the Government, through the United Nations or directly, about an increase in African unemployment brought about by the sanctions policy?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to table a detailed Question about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many South African personnel it is estimated have taken part in security operations in Rhodesia since the unilateral declaration of independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of the number of South African police at present operating in Rhodesia.

I have been asked to reply.

I am not in a position to give the House reliable estimates.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that this totally unacceptable presence indicates the concern not only of the Rhodesian illegal régime but also of the South African Government about security? Is this not a good reason for reactivating the principle of a direct British presence?

No, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend is aware of the reasons why we have always felt that the use of force by Britain was the wrong policy. I have recently made representations to the South African Government about the presence of these South African police, and the South African Government are well aware of our views.

In his recent talks with members of the South African Government, did the right hon. Gentleman raise this matter as being one of considerable importance to the relation ship between our two countries?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy with regard to alterations to the com position of the Rhodesian Legislature provided that a blocking quarter of directly and popularly elected Africans is secured; and if he will make a statement.

I have been asked to reply.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to Paragraph I (ii) of the "Fear less" proposals.

When the right hon. Gentleman came back from the "Fearless" talks, he said that there was no trouble about this, but when he returned from Salisbury he said, on 18th November, that the Government could not accept it. Will he clarify this important point, even though we recognise that his position is made more difficult by the attitude of the British Prime Minister?

I will try to clarify the point. No difficulty has been caused by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Our position during my discussions in Salisbury was the same as our position in the talks my right hon. Friend had with Mr. Smith on H.M.S. "Fearless". It was Mr. Smith's position which had changed in the interim.

rose —

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

I take that point of order but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has now prevented another hon. Gentleman from asking a supplementary Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to the present policy of Her Majesty's Government on the supply of arms to the United States of America for use in Vietnam.

There has been no change in our policy since the reply my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 22nd January. Although we do not place any restrictions or conditions on arms sold to the United States, our policy is not to sell arms specifically for use in Vietnam.—[Vol. 757, Col. 10.]

Will the Foreign Secretary say precisely what that means? If the United States asks for a consignment of arms plainly for use in Vietnam, will Her Majesty's Government supply them?

No, Sir. It has not been our policy to do so, as was clear in my Answer. This policy has been operated for some time and has caused no difficulty between us and the United States.

Is it not about time that restrictions or qualifications were put on the sale of arms by us to the United States?

I am sure that it would not be right to make an alteration in the policy, particularly at the present stage of negotiations on Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he proposes that citizens of the United Kingdom and of the 21 dependent territories concerned are to have effective recourse under Article 13 of the Human Rights Convention, in view of the fact that facilities to invoke the relevant provision before the competent authority in this country or in the over seas territory are at present lacking.

I am satisfied that as required by Article 13 effective remedies would in practice be available for any violation of the Convention which might be established.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how this might be implemented, because there seems to be little point in being a signatory of the convention unless the relevant pro visions can be invoked?

I do not agree that the relevant provisions cannot be invoked. I have still to be convinced that there is any need for the action for which I presume the Question asks.

Does the practice of detention without trial in Hong Kong com ply with the Human Rights Convention?

There is another Question on the Order Paper relating to that territory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Polish relations.

Anglo-Polish relations have been set back by the participation of Poland in the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It remains our wish that these relations should develop as fully and constructively as possible. But this depends on mutual confidence, and it is primarily for those who have dispelled this to restore it.

Would my right hon. Friend consider making representations to the Polish Government stressing our anxiety about the student trials which are about to take place and suggesting that the policy is not only the discreditable to that nation but a further element in the dangerous situation between the East and West?

It is not our practice as a Government to make representations about the internal affairs of another Government, and, indeed, it would be counter productive in a case like this for us to do so. But we lose no opportunity, especially through out representative at the United Nations, of condemning such discriminatory practices.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the great mass of the Polish people are as shocked at what happened in Czechoslovakia as people in this country are?

I am sure that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking in order to assist in the securing of a settlement of the current Middle East crisis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to facilitate an Arab-Israeli settlement in line with the United Nations Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he has taken following the Security Council resolution proposing the principles for an Arab-Israeli settlement, and with what success; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my hon. Friends and the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) to my speech in the foreign affairs debate on 12th December.—[Vol. 775, cols. 603–4.]

In connection with the search for a settlement, can my right hon. Friend comment on recent reports that Israel may now be more flexible concerning her claim to annex the whole of Jerusalem?

I do not think it would be helpful for me to comment on precise aspects of the matter like that. What we have been doing is to urge on all the Governments concerned the action that we believe they could usefully take to help Dr. Jarring in his work.

Is it not, unfortunately, true that the efforts that we are making are not having helpful results and that the crisis is getting worse? Would not my right hon. Friend think it appropriate for certain Western European countries, going outside N.A.T.O. and W.E.U., to come together to see whether they can add a constructive contribution?

It is Her Majesty's Government policy that there should be increasing discussion between West European nations on all matters of foreign policy. But we should notice that Dr. Jarring is proposing a further round of discussions with the parties. I think that at present the best thing we can do is to encourage him and urge the parties to help him in his work.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-German relations, in the light of recent events in the field of defence and international monetary affairs in Europe.

We are co-operating closely with the Federal Republic of Germany, both bilaterally and multilaterally, in many fields of common European concern including defence and monetary affairs.

While there has undoubtedly been some exaggeration of the new power influence of West Germany in European affairs, is not the time ripe for some initiative by Her Majesty's Government to ensure closer co-operation with the Federal Republic on questions affecting British entry into the Common Market, N.A.T.O., international liquidity and other affairs?

We have been and are in close touch with the Federal Republic on those subjects. I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "initiative". It is constant discussion of these affairs with West Germany that will bring the most fruitful co-operation.

What progress is being made on proposals for Anglo-German-Dutch co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and on an advanced fighter aircraft?

On the question of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as the House was informed earlier we are in consultation with the Dutch and Federal German Governments about the development of the gas centrifuge method of enriching uranium. Preliminary meetings at Ministerial level have taken place and it is hoped to pursue this matter with the ultimate objective of joint collaboration.

Was there any consultation between Her Majesty's Government and Dr. Kiesinger, the West German Chancellor, before the Chancellor's recent visit to Madrid, when he promised the Spanish Government that he would assist them to join the Common Market? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if that proposal were implemented, it would make the Common Market even less democratic than now?

I know of no such consultations between Her Majesty's representatives and the West German Chancellor on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to British ambassadors and high commissioners abroad with regard to increasing their efforts to further British exports.

British ambassadors and high commissioners are under standing instructions to regard promotion of ex ports as a first charge on their resources.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is considerable variation in the degree of helpfulness received by British exporters from British embassies and high commissions? Will he look into this and reiterate the instructions given by the former Foreign Secretary on the helpfulness that embassies and high commissions abroad should show to our exporters?

If my hon. Friend can give me instances of complaints about lack of assistance I should be glad to look into them, but I cannot accept the general charge when, almost every day, I receive letters from chambers of commerce and individual firms thanking us for our assistance and saying how much better the services are now than they were some years ago.

Is it considered an essential qualification for promotion in the Foreign and Commonwealth Service that a candidate should have spent at least one tour of duty in the commercial office of a leading embassy?

I would not say that it is a formal requirement but there is a great desire among younger members of the Service in particular to make a contribution to helping exports in this way. Indeed, a number of recent entrants, asked why they had applied to join the Service, said that they felt that they could make an increased contribution in this way to the future prosperity of the country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the future constitutional position of British Honduras.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 18th November.—[Vol. 773, c. 191.]

Is this not a disappointing situation? As this is one of our few remaining colonies, is it not time the Government laid down some kind of timetable within which British Honduras can gain its independence?

It is our intention that British Honduras should proceed to independence and at the pace at which its Government consider it should adopt. No formal request has been received from the Government of British Honduras so far for a constitutional conference.

Since the repudiation of the mediator's report by the Government of British Honduras, have there been talks, official or unofficial, between that Government and Guatemala or between Her Majesty's Government and Guatemala? Can we have an assurance here and now that the wishes of the people of British Honduras will be paramount?

I can give the assurance asked for. As the hon. Gentleman says, since the failure of mediation we have been considering other means of solving this dispute.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his visit to Pakistan and India.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to India.

I am grateful to the Pakistan and Indian Governments for their invitations, which enabled me to visit their countries so soon after becoming responsible for British relations with Commonwealth countries.

I especially welcomed the opportunity to discuss major international issues with members of the Pakistan and Indian Governments. The warm welcome I received in both countries was reinforced by the frankness and candour of our discussions.

Whilst welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has done to improve relations with the sub-continent, may I ask him why, on landing in Bombay, he took the opportunity to run down my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)? Is this true?

I had to curtail my visit and was unable to visit Bombay. I was on several occasions asked my opinion of the views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and I gave them.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on persuading Mrs. Gandhi to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. Was he able to improve British-Indian relations during his truncated stay? Was he able to make any further arrangements for East African holders of British passports who wished to do so to settle in India when they are of Indian origin?

The Prime Minister of India expresses a hope that she will be able to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. I believe that my visit was useful in improving relations between Britain and India. The question of East African holders of British pass- ports who are of Indian origin was raised in our discussions. We did not conclude any formal agreement about it but the Indian Government have been helpful and I think they will continue to be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose through the Committee of Ministers to the Council of Europe that it should explore the possibility of creating a Middle Eastern Development Organisation.

We do not regard this as an urgent task for the Council of Europe.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen that the proposal received widespread support both in the Assembly of Western European Union and in the North Atlantic Assembly? Does not he agree that this area would benefit greatly from a scheme based perhaps on the lines of the Colombo Plan and that, if free Europe could get such a scheme launched, it would be extremely helpful from the point of view of the free world in assisting this difficult and sensitive area?

I do not deny the desirability of a development programme for the Middle East. We have a number of bilateral programmes ourselves and would welcome further programmes by other European countries. We feel that projects of this kind might better be in the hands of the O.E.C.D. rather than of the Council of Europe but that is just our preliminary view.