asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest attempts to end the war in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's latest efforts to promote a cease-fire in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further initiatives he proposes with a view to the cessation of the civil war in Nigeria.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to promote a cease-fire in the Nigerian civil war.

An opportunity to resume informal discussions between the Nigerian Government and Colonel Ojukwu's representatives arose at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. The leader of the Nigerian delegation, Chief Awolowo, then repeatedly affirmed that he was ready to see Colonel Ojukwu's representatives without pre-conditions. I urged them to respond to this offer, but most regrettably they failed to do so. My right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, has already told the House on 21st of January of the steps that he took to try to promote a meeting. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to assist the further efforts which African organisations are now making to secure a peaceful settlement.—[Vol. 776, c. 253–4.]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the general principles of Dr. Azikiwe's peace plan, which seems to offer a reasonable compromise, particularly since all other approaches have so far failed?

I have not as yet seen the detailed proposals of Dr. Azikiwe. I am sure that, speaking as an Ibo and a former President of Nigeria, his views will De given the widest possible attention. It is for those to whom the proposals are addressed in the first instance to consider whether they are willing to accept them.

Would my hon. Friend accept that the stability of life in Biafra and the determination to fight for some kind of separate existence are such that no military end to the war is in view at the moment, and would he not agree that as this problem is not capable of a military solution there should be a reappraisal in London of the situation which now applies?

I am aware that my hon. Friend has just come back from that part of Africa, and I am delighted to see him and am looking forward to talking to him about his experiences. We have always maintained that both sides must come together and that they must talk. The first prerequisite is a negotiated ceasefire, and then a whole series of things, including relief, a total arms embargo, the security of the Ibos, peace talks and a negotiated settlement, can happen. These are the things which we want to see.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that Colonel Ojukwu has suggested that there should now be a meeting without any preconditions at all simply to arrange the terms of a ceasefire? Does my hon. Friend support this idea?

My hon. Friend could not have listened to what I said. An offer was made here in London to Colonel Ojukwu's friends for such discussions without preconditions. The fact that they did not take place must, clearly, be attributable to Colonel Ojukwu.

I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could elucidate that a little further. I understood that Colonel Ojukwu, earlier in the year at any rate, proposed that there should be negotiations without preconditions provided there was a cease-fire. It is within the recollection of the House that the Prime Minister, in his statement on 30th January, said that he would not negotiate without, I think, recognition of Biafra's nationhood. There is a discrepancy here which I hope the hon. Gentleman will clear up.

I am very happy to clear this up. What the Federal Government are willing to concede is that once the unity of Nigeria is accepted, everything else is negotiable. The question for them is to get a negotiated cease-fire, and all these other things can flow from it. The notion of a cease-fire without conditions brings us back to what this war is all about.

The hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood me, I think. I am dealing with Colonel Ojukwu's position. Does he say he will negotiate without preconditions provided there is a cease-fire, or does he say he will not negotiate unless his nationhood is first recognised?

It is rather difficult to follow all the pronouncements which Colonel Ojukwu has made over the last few months. I do not want to disparage him, for he is in a very difficult situation, but the plain fact is that at this moment there has been no public statement from Colonel Ojukwu of his willingness to negotiate on the basis of one Nigeria.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the proposals by Dr. Azikiwe yesterday, and the statement made by Chief Awolowo, the No. 2 in the Lagos Government, that he does not regard the existing structure as permanent but capable of readjustment? In view of this, would my hon. Friend consider asking these two experienced leaders in Nigeria to meet together? I think that if they met they would find a common basis on which peace could be negotiated.

Yes, I am aware of the comments made by Chief Awolowo in his book, and, indeed, I discussed them with him. He has made it quite clear, which is the understanding we have, that the Federal Government's attitude is that provided one Nigeria is accepted everything is negotiable, the number of States. powers, competencies and so on.

Will my hon. Friend call them together?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had this year with the other Governments principally concerned towards achieving an agreed limitation on the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian war; and with what result.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consultations he has had with the French Government about measures to be taken with a view to ending the supply of arms to both sides in the Nigerian civil war; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take a further initiative to seek a cease-fire in Nigeria and an international embargo on the supply of arms to both sides of the conflict.

None, Sir. As my right hon. Friend explained to the House on 16th December—[Vol. 775, c. 846 and c. 236]—the French deny that they are supplying arms, while the Russians have made it clear that they continue to support the Federal Government.

Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the eyes of a great many people inside and outside this country, and contrary to the impression that one of his colleagues gave during Questions last Monday, this country still has a special responsibility in the matter? Would he not agree that some further initiative by Britain inside or outside the United Nations could not do any harm and might do some good?

We are anxious to take and have taken initiatives. As my right hon. Friend told the House on 16th December,

Would my hon. Friend agree that the question of arms cannot be divorced from the political issues involved in the war, and that the principal political issue involved—namely, one Nigeria or two—is not to be determined by a plebiscite amongst the minority tribes in the Eastern Region, as has been suggested by Dr. Azikiwe?

I would prefer not to comment in detail on Dr. Azikiwe's proposals. I would rather see them given a fair hearing and judge what the reaction is. In order to get an arms embargo the first step is to get a negotiated cease-fire, when an arms embargo can be enforced at the receiving end in Nigeria, together with relief to those concerned and the start of discussions about a future constitution for Nigeria.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that recent visitors to Biafra have seen arms from eight different countries being used by the Biafrans? Can he say with what countries he has had contact and consultations with a view to stopping these arms supplies?

In the course of events, we have had discussions with the French, and they are aware of our views. The problem of arms in Biafra and, for that matter, Federal Nigeria, is that there are eight or nine sources in Europe and that these are identifiable by those who have been there. This makes it more difficult to get an embargo agreed, because both sides obtain weapons from a multiplicity of sources, even from countries which say that they are applying an embargo.

As one of those who have identified arms from eight different European countries, may I remind my hon. Friend that they are being supplied to both sides? They come from a scandalous black market which has been set up in Europe. Will my hon. Friend take action in the Council of Europe to stop these supplies?

I agree with the first part of what my right hon. Friend says. As for the second part, there is a Motion before the Council of Europe, tabled by one of my hon. Friends, drawing attention to this scandalous black market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to secure a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in line with the Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress Her Majesty's Government have made in securing a Middle East settlement in accordance with the Resolution of the Security Council in November, 1967.

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

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

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

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

We expect the representatives of the four permanent members of the Security Council to meet to discuss this in the near future.

Will the Foreign Secretary agree that the resolution cannot be implemented if Israel continues in her refusal to withdraw from conquered Arab territories? Would it not greatly help and encourage Israel in her refusal if she were to be sold British arms for use in these conquered territories, and would not my right hon. Friend agree, therefore, that the sale of British arms at this time to Israel for use in conquered Arab territories would be highly dangerous and unprincipled?

Clearly, the resolution cannot be fully carried out without withdrawal because withdrawal is part of the resolution; so, of course, are a great many other things. We must consider applications about arms on their merits, but it has been our object all the time to urge on both parties the importance of doing everything that will show their willingness to carry out all parts of the resolution.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will not be intimidated by Gaullist bullying from continuing his efforts to co-ordinate European policy towards the Middle East, and, in particular, that he will not allow the conference of W.E.U. later this week to be called off?

I think that really arises on the next Question.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that there is a distinction between the supply of arms for domestic self-defence and the supply of arms which might be used, for example, in the occupied territories against the Arab peoples? Surely there is a difference between the two?

There is a difference, of course. This is one of many factors which we have to take into account in all transactions relating to arms.

Will the Foreign Secretary give an undertaking that in any four-Power meeting he will raise again the matter contained in his declaration of June, 1967, calling for a complete suspension of armament supplies by all nations to the Middle East? Will he confirm or deny that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sell Centurion tanks to Israel? Whilst Israel undoubtedly has the right to defend herself, will this not make our own position as arbitrators in the Security Council very much more difficult?

It has never been the practice to make pronouncements on particular transactions, but we have previously expressed our desire to have a general restriction on arms supplies and our willingness to take part. I have no doubt that this will come up in the Four Power conversations.

May we have an assurance from my right hon. Friend that in any peace-keeping with which Her Majesty's Government are associated it must be clearly understood that no one from any of the Arab countries will be allowed to interfere with the underpants of a British soldier?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions with Italy, France and other Western European countries with a view to co-ordinating policies towards the Arab-Israeli conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the special meeting of Western European Union Ministers he called in London for Friday, 14th February.

As I said on 13th February, I asked for a meeting of the Permanent Council of Western European Union on 14th February because there was only limited time for discussion on the Middle East at the Western European Union Ministerial meeting at Luxembourg on 6th and 7th February. We felt that there would be advantage in having a fuller opportunity to consult our friends in Europe in greater depth in view of the forthcoming meeting of the four permanent members of the Security Council. Our hopes that the meeting on 14th February would be positively useful were fully justified, and this view was entirely shared by our European partners.—[Vol. 777, c. 1566–7.]

While thanking the Foreign Secretary for his prompt action following the appearance of this Question on the Order Paper, may I ask him whether these European countries, in order to encourage Israel to withdraw, might lot consider making a special contribution within the United Nations to Israel's security on her old frontiers?

That clearly is a matter that European countries could consider, and it was not necessarily in this connection but because the peace of the Middle East is of concern to so many European countries that I thought it was right to have these consultations.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware, however, that if he wishes to coordinate the policy and also maintain British influence in the Middle East, which is growing at the moment, it would be a great mistake to supply arms now to Israel?

I am noting, of course, what hon. Members are saying in this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend, in discussing these matters, take into consideration the fact that the U.S.S.R. has been supplying vast quantities of arms to the Arabs and, in the event of discussions taking place, that the U.S.S.R. itself sent a resolution to the Assembly some years ago stating that if in countries saboteurs are trained the country which it is proposed to be attacked has the right not only to react against the offending State but to regard the matter as an act of aggression?

Yes, I am aware of this, and anything that is done on arms will be most useful if it can be done by joint action between the Powers.

Will the Foreign Secretary resist any attacks on the Secretary-General of W.E.U. because of the calling of this successful meeting last Friday?

Yes, Sir, and I think that would be the view of all the other members of W.E.U.

Mr. Winnick.

On a point of order. Since the Foreign Secretary declined to answer my earlier question on the ground that it arose on this Question and not on the previous one, would it not be reasonable to allow me to put my question at this stage?

It would be reasonable but not in order at the moment. Mr. Winnick.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the continued membership of Greece in the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) on 10th February. Our consultations with other member Governments have not yet been completed.[Vol. 777, c. 882.]

Will the Foreign Secretary give a firm guarantee today that the British Government will actively support the resolution passed by the Council of Europe on Greece, and will he say why it is that on so many occasions the Foreign Office lags behind Scandinavia in exposing the brutal dictatorship in Greece—is it because it is a Right-wing dictatorship?

I do not think that the last part of my hon. Friend's Question is in any way justified by the facts. The resolution calls on the Council of Ministers to take appropriate action and that clearly requires consultation between them. The meeting of the Council of Ministers will be in May, there will be time for consultation, and it ought to take place.

In considering the Government's attitude, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that all but one of the all-party British delegation in the Assembly voted for this resolution, and the one who did not vote abstained, he did not vote against it?

Yes, Sir, I am very much aware of that, and of the very strong feeling there was in the Assembly on this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the increased naval activity of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the Eastern Mediterranean, he will give an assurance that he will support the continued inclusion of Greece within the Atlantic and European organisations of which it is a member.

No Government have proposed Greece's expulsion from these organisations.

We may all deplore the delay in holding elections and in reinstating free institutions in Greece, but will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that no action will be taken which will weaken our defences in the Eastern Mediterranean?

It is our desire—and I believe that it is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House—to see constitutional liberties restored in Greece, but I would not want to take action which would weaken N.A.T.O. without forwarding that purpose.

Why should we trouble ourselves about the presence of Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean? Has not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence declared that they can be shot out of the water in a few minutes?

Although the Question referred to that point, that is not the only one in our minds. The strength and solidity of N.A.T.O. everywhere is of first-class importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations are being made at the United Nations and other international bodies over the continued Russian occupation of Czechoslovakia.

None, Sir. The question of Czechoslovakia remains before the Security Council.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that there is as much admiration amongst British people as there is amongst Czechs for the noble motives which led Jan Palach to take his life a few weeks ago, and that the guilt of the Munich Agreement is one reason why we have a special regard for the Czech people now under Russian occupation?

Certainly I agree with the general purport and spirit of what my hon. Friend says. I must warn, him, however, that, when he deals with specific treaties, there are a number of international questions as to legality which need to be considered very carefully.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the United States Government to join in a new initiative to secure the banning of underground nuclear tests under proper conditions of inspection and verification.

We have already taken the initiative in making certain proposals to facilitate the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban. We hope that all states concerned will join in a constructive discussion of this subject when the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committeee reconvenes on 6th March.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any wider adherence to the nuclear non-proliferation agreement is likely to depend, in some measure at least, on the closing of this remaining gap in the test ban treaty? Will he instruct his right hon. and noble Friend who is responsible for disarmament to give this the very highest priority when the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee resumes its meetings?

We have always realised that the real significance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty depended on what steps were taken in other spheres of activity. That is why my right hon. Friend has been so active at Geneva in promoting this and other measures.

When the Eighteen-Nation Committee meets again, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can have brought before it the progress which has been made at the Lincoln Laboratory in the United States, with the co-operation of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, on what is known as the Vela Uniform project for the identification of underground explosions?

I should like to consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to initiate dis- cussions with the new United States administration concerning the control of Great Britain's nuclear deterrent within an Atlantic or multilateral framework.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss with the new United States administration the effects of the nuclear strategy of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on foreign policy.

Nuclear strategy is the subject of regular discussion within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, notably in the Nuclear Planning Group of which both the United Kingdom and the United States are members. The foreign policy and defence arrangements of individual members of the Alliance are of course reflected in these discussions.

Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that Her Majesty's Government's earlier proposals for an Atlantic nuclear force remain the best way forward for stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, and do the Government still adhere to their pledge to internationalise our strategic nuclear forces?

On the hon. Gentleman's latter point, I would refer to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 30th January. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we have to see what progress is made in the Nuclear Planning Group.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that there is the closest collaboration with the United States on nuclear strategy and that this close collaboration is likely to continue?

Yes, Sir.

Has it not always been Her Majesty's Government's view and the American Government's view that we should not be the first to use nuclear weapons? Would my right hon. Friend have a word with his right hon. Friend to see whether this is not at variance with what he has been saying recently?

No, I do not think that my hon. Friend is correct about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with other Commonwealth countries, since the Prime Ministers' Conference, about problems of migration and nationality; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his bilateral talks on migration with the East African and Indian Governments.

The bilateral talks on Commonwealth immigration, to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his answer to Questions on 21st January—[Vol. 776, c. 253.]—have not yet taken place.

As progress with this problem could be of considerable help towards the maintenance of racial harmony in this country, would the Government pursue these consultations with the greatest urgency, and would the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep the House regularly informed about their progress, in view of the great public interest?

We shall do our best to make the speediest progress that we can, and I will see that the House is kept informed.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given good will on all sides, there is a possibility of a solution, provided that the Kenya Government do not deport too many Asians too quickly, that the Indian Government give a proportion of them a temporary haven, and that the British Government accept their ultimate responsibility for these British citizens?

I think that the spirit of that is the right approach. There is a contribution which several Commonwealth countries can make to the solution of this problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations with St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his policy with regard to St. Kitts and Anguilla; and what new initiative he plans to seek a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in negotiations to continue the appointment of a British administrator in Anguilla.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, before the discussions which are to take place during the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean, he will arrange with the authorities of the St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla group for a visit to Anguilla by the Under-Secretary.

I would refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 5th of February [Vol. 777, c. 127–9]. As regards a new initiative, my hon. Friend will do what he can, within the limits imposed by the constitutional position, when he visits the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean later this month.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the great majority of Anguillans wish to retain their links with Britain and the Commonwealth? As an earnest of our good intentions, could he arrange for a senior British officer to return to Anguilla, as that is what the people want, and also protect them from the shoal of financial sharks which may well be moving in for a killing in that area?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the sentiments of the Anguillan people. My hon. Friend hopes to meet all concerned when he visits the area, and certainly he will consult with Mr. Lee, who lately was the administrator on the island.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that his hon. Friend will discuss the matter with the Premier of St. Kitts and with Mr. Webster of Anguilla, and try to continue the policy of mediation between the two, possibly with a view to a confederal solution? Is he aware of any help being received from the independent Governments in the Caribbean, who should be as anxious as we are to see the problems solved?

On the range of his contacts I could not prejudge what my hon. Friend will decide, but I should expect that these would be very wide and representative. Concerning a Caribbean initiative, if I may call it that, certainly this will be one of the things that he will bear in mind.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most Anguillans feel that they have been deserted by Britain? What are the Government doing to dispel this most unfortunate impression, and may I ask whether the Minister's hon. Friend is going to Anguilla?

My hon. Friend will decide on the spot, in the circumstances obtaining, whether he will go to Anguilla. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I do not think it fair to say that the Anguillans have been deserted. What has happened is that Anguilla has taken unilateral action to terminate the interim arrangements.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an absolute assurance that any request from the Government of St. Kitts for arms with which to crash the rebellion will be refused?

I think that we should meet those points if and when they arise. I do not anticipate that any such situation will ever arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the St. Kitts Government have imposed sanctions on mail and trade to Anguilla? Is it not a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that this country, responsible for the external affairs of these islands, is apparently unable to solve this dispute? Have the Government any proposal to invite the help of other Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean in finding a solution?

The cessation of mail deliveries is an internal matter. Nevertheless, when my hon. Friend visits the area he will look into this very carefully and seek ways of resolving this difficult problem. As to the Caribbean initiative, I repeat that this will be one of the matters that my hon. Friend will bear in mind.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter again.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to carry forward plans for European unification in areas not covered by the Treaty of Rome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the recent meeting of the Western European Union Foreign Ministers in Luxembourg.

At the Luxembourg meeting of Western European Union on 6th and 7th February I expressed again the Government's full support for Monsieur Harmel's proposals, which had been set out in an Italian paper prepared in consultation with other member Governments. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs told the House on 10th February of the agreement reached at that meeting. I regard this agreement as a useful step towards closer harmonisation of policies in fields not covered by the Treaty of Rome.—[Vol. 777, c. 879–80.]

Is it not true that the original Harmel proposals have in fact been watered down by French objections? Are not the Government, by continuing this danse macabre in the backyard of the Common Market, really doing great damage to French relations with the Common Market by tending to isolate them? Is it not time that they stopped doing this?

I do not accept that for a moment. It is quite true that in seeking agreement with the French we considered what presentation in the Italian paper would be the most likely to reach general agreement. It is not our desire to isolate the French. But we cannot take the view that no progress can be made without their agreement.

Whilst a worsening of relations with the French is to be regretted, would the Foreign Secretary accept that the position on European unity and the way for France is broadly right? Having taken the initiative on foreign policy, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate where else he thinks favourable initiatives on this basis could be taken?

The Italian paper referred to a number of other spheres; for example, defence and technology. It was thought right to begin with this one, and we shall persist.

Will my right hon. Friend regard any attempt to suggest that we are trying to isolate the French as mischievous, and will he give greater attention to technological collaboration and scientific development?

Yes. I hope it is an ignorant rather than a mischievous suggestion that we are deliberately trying to isolate the French. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, there is a later Question on that matter.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that he will not be intimidated, by continuous Gaul-list blustering and bullying in this matter, from pursuing these very constructive proposals, and will he also resist any effort to call off the W.E.U. meeting later this week in Paris?

We have no intention of calling off that meeting. However, I shall try to avoid, if I can, words like "blustering" and "bullying". We have stated quite clearly what we propose to do and why we think it is right to go on doing it.

Will my right hon. Friend say what plans he has for meetings with the French Foreign Secretary in the near future? Does he agree with the proposition that Britain and France have a natural community of interest as against certain other countries in both Eastern and Western Europe?

There are very close connections between the French and ourselves and there are frequent opportunities for exchange of views. I agree that there ought to be a great community of interest between the French and ourselves and that present differences of opinion are very much to be regretted. However, I do not think that they are of our making.

While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the highly successful initiative that he took in convening the W.E.U. meeting on the Middle East, may I ask whether he is aware that there is much satisfaction on the continent with the knowledge that when the British Government discuss these matters in New York they will not only be representing their own views, but they will also be able to take into account the views of their partners in Western Europe?

I believed that it was right to hold and take part in this meeting not only as an earnest of our belief in European consultation, but for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. Although the four permanent members have a special responsibility towards the Middle East, it would be most undesirable for it to be thought that they were going to try to settle the whole matter themselves without regard to the interests or beliefs of other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has put to Mr. Smith for a second guarantee which does not include participation from outside Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

The alternative proposal put to the régime by my right hon. Friend the Minister without Portfolio during his visit to Salisbury, provided for a second safeguard mechanism, which would not only begin in Rhodesia, but would also leave the last word with the Rhodesian people.

Did not these proposals require to be activated through the Privy Council? Does the Minister appreciate that any question of settlement must be based on the second guarantee? Will he make it clear that an adequate second guarantee which lay within the ambit of Rhodesian sovereignty would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government?

The proposed amendment that we made in Salisbury to the second safeguard was to give the Privy Council a sieving rôle. This was not to be the initiating, nor the final arbiter. In that respect, we have gone a long way to meeting the objections of the Rhodesian régime.

In view of the new constitution proposed in Rhodesia, is it not futile to go on trying to negotiate with Mr. Smith for an agreement which can only be based on shifting sands? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, withdraw immediately the "Fearless" proposals?

I have seen Press reports of the new constitutional proposals. We have not yet received the authoritative details. From what has been published, it is evident that the proposals are wholly inconsistent with the six principles. No constitution that may be introduced in Rhodesia in present circumstances will be legally valid. In view of the clear inconsistency between the new proposals for a constitution and the six principles, it is all the more important to keep our proposals before the people of Rhodesia so that they may realise that there is a more hopeful attitude which may develop in their country.

When the Government receive confirmation of, and have had a chance: to consider in detail, this proposed constitution, may we take it that because they regard it as constituting a rejection of the "Fearless" proposals and the six principles, they will have no alternative but to withdraw those proposals?

I should await the consideration of their proposals.

If my hon. Friend says that the new constitutional proposals as published in the Press are against the six principles, and if, as is likely, the new constitution will be accepted by the white minority in Rhodesia, what on earth is the point of leaving the "Fearless" proposals on the table?

I think that the point of leaving the "Fearless" proposals on the table is that the people of Rhodesia, in making up their minds, will have a choice between the proposals of the Smith régime, which abrogate the six principles, and the "Fearless" proposals.

Will the hon. Gentleman ask his hon. Friend to consider a treaty safeguard?

The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that that was one of the proposals mentioned by the Prime Minister during the debate last October as one of the alternatives which had also been rejected by the Smith régime.

Will the Government constantly to bear in mind that the whole of experience in Southern Africa has shown that to hand sovereign independence to a small white minority can lead only to disaster?

That is why we have advocated the proposals in "Fearless", and if the people of Rhodesia as a whole, under a free choice, have the means of saying "Yea" or "No" we shall abide by that. They must be the final arbiters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the South African Government about the situation in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

We have of course discussed the Rhodesian situation with the South African Government, as with other African Governments, from time to time: but discussions of this kind between Governments must remain confidential.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is every reason to believe that the South African Government regard the present illegal régime in Rhodesia as an acute embarrassment and a threat to the long-term security of South Africa? Is not this the right moment to investigate, with the Government of South Africa, at least the possibility of Britain's resuming a direct presence in Rhodesia?

We have our differences with South Africa over the Rhodesian problem but we share a common interest in the stability of Southern Africa. I do not think that my hon. Friend's suggestion would get very far.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his study of the implications of the Spanish extension of air and sea territorial limits for Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

The decree published by the Spanish Government on 20th January apparently creates a contiguous zone extending six miles from Spanish territorial waters, in which the Spanish authorities may exercise fiscal control for customs purposes. The decree does not appear to be directed against Gibraltar, and cannot in any case affect our existing rights there.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this is not the start of a new squeeze on Gibraltar? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Spanish Government that we shall not tolerate any interference with air or sea access to Gibraltar?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to have any further talks with Spain in which the issue of the sovereignty of Gibraltar would remain on the agenda.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on 20th January, neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Spanish Government have proposed a renewal of talks. There was no agenda for the Anglo-Spanish talks held in Madrid in March, 1968.—[Vol. 776, c. 22.]

If they are renewed will the hon. Gentleman confirm, as set out in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' communiqué, that the wishes and interests of the inhabitants must be paramount?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking to expedite the study by the United Nations Economic and Social Council of the feasibility of creating an international corps of volunteers for development which could enable youth to form an effective force for economic and social progress.

General Assembly resolution No. 2460 of 15th January, 1969, requested the Economic and Social Council to undertake this feasibility study. Until the Council meets in July to discuss this request, nothing can be done to expedite the study. Meanwhile, we are carefully considering the subject, so that we can contribute fully to the discussions in July.

Would not such a corps provide the "global challenge" which is desired by those students genuinely concerned about the problems of the Third World, and also provide a means for helping to solve them?

Indeed, it would. There are certain administrative difficulties of a quite serious nature, but we are disposed to support this move, and we hope that these difficulties might be overcome with the benefits which the hon. Gentleman has so graphically described.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much each of the 101 members of the United Nations who recently voted in favour of extending the mandate of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for three years from 30th June, 1969, and who urged that members' contributions should be increased, is now contributing to the Agency; and which of them has increased its contribution since that vote.

As the Answer is rather long I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if this great expense had been borne by the Arab States and by Israel in appropriate proportions the matter would have been settled long ago?

I should rather say that if the burden had been more equitably shared by all members of the United Nations the work of relief would have been even more effective than it has been, and that the prospects for the future would be brighter.