asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in view of the new situation which now exists in the Middle East, whether he is satisfied that Egypt now accepts the international status of the Suez Canal under the 1888 Convention; and if he will make a statement.

In a declaration dated the 24th of April, 1957, the Egyptian Government reaffirmed that they would continue to respect observe and implement the terms and the spirit of the Constantinople Convention of 1888. I believe that the United Arab Republic Government stand by this declaration.

Is it not true that, in recent years, by their actions they have shown that they do not stand by this declaration? If one is talking, as we are today, about adherence to the resolution of the United Nations, is it not a good idea to go back to the first ones?

It is a question of ability as well as of intention. My understanding is that the U.A.R. Government intend that the provisions of the Convention shall be observed. I would suggest that this, like other important aspects of a general settlement in the Middle East, could well be an important subject for discussion in the current talks in New York among the four permanent members.

Does it follow from that that Egypt accepts responsibility for the safety of British ships detained in the Bitter Lakes?

I have said that they accept the Convention of 1888. From my own observation when visiting the area, certainly they have co-operated very fully in maintaining and helping our ships in the Great Bitter Lake.

Why does my hon. Friend assert and emphasise that Egypt respects the Convention of 1888, when she has disregarded it on every possible occasion?

I do not think that it is quite as simple as that. We must remember that the Canal is in the middle between two opposing armies. It is a matter of practical difficulty on both sides as to how the Canal is to be released for free navigation. It will be a major aim of the present discussions, which we all hope will be fruitful, to attain this among other aspects of the United Nations Resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest negotiations over the ships trapped in the Suez Canal.

Discussions are proceeding but at the moment I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 17th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 27–9.]

What representations have been made for the safety of the ships?

The safety of the ships is not in question. As I said earlier, there has been complete co-operation by the U.A.R. authorities and all concerned, and our consular representatives are constantly in touch with the crews. There is no anxiety for their safety and, from day to day, we are checking on the position.

What is the position over the insurance of these ships?

I think that all the ships except two are insured or reinsured to some extent on the British market. I cannot at the moment go into detail, but if the noble Lord would put down a Question, I should like to help.

Is it not a fact that the presence of Israeli forces in the east bank does not prevent the clearance of the Canal or the release of the ships; and that the Egyptian Government are refusing to do so only on grounds of prestige?

I do not accept that statement. This is a very delicate position but, as of now, I would say that both sides have been co-operative—[Interruption.] Well, co-operative towards the approaches made for the release of these ships. I hope that nothing will be said here that might complicate the negotiations now going on between the shipowners' committee, the U.A.R. Government and others, because, at the moment, there is hope that the survey for the southern exit will begin soon.

Is it not because the Government have remained silent for too long that Egypt has been getting away with it? Will my right hon. Friend be kind enough to define specifically what he means by "complete co-operation"?

I have said that at the moment there is very full cooperation by both sides towards the attempts being made to release these ships from the Great Bitter Lake. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is stopping them?"] What is stopping them is the situation in the area, which is one in which two opposing armies face each other across the canal. Progress has been made and is being made, and I am hopeful that fairly soon we may see the survey of the southern exit put in hand.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much more co-operative the two sides will have to be to get the ships out?

If the two sides maintain their present attitude towards the request of the shipowners' committee, I would say that the ships will be released.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration he has given to proposals for bilateral tariff reductions between the European Economic Community and countries applying for membership.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 18th February [Vol. 778, c. 207–13] and to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said in reply to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 10th February [Vol. 777, c. 876–7].

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, outside his Department, the fact that a proposal emanated from France would not be regarded as a sufficient reason in itself for its rejection? Can he say what there is incompatible about proposals for tariff cutting with our bid for full membership of the European Community?

No one would be so foolish as to regard the fact that a proposal emanated from France as an objection to it. There is not necessarily anything incompatible between our desire to enter the European Economic Community and bilateral reductions but, as has been explained in the House, any proposal of this kind would from our point of view need to be clearly linked with our entry into the Community

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, provided an arrangement of this kind could be made compatible with our obligations to G.A.T.T. an approach of this sort would be consistent with his own efforts to increase cooperation with the members of the Six in every possible way, pending our full membership of the Common Market?

Yes, Sir. We have stated that we would certainly look at any proposals of this kind which came from the Six as a whole and which were clearly intended as a prelude to our entry to the Community and not as a substitute for it

Have the Government done a detailed study of particular tariff reductions between the Community and ourselves which would benefit this country, in view of the fact that, under the most-favoured nation clause of G.A.T.T., they would have to be extended to other countries without reciprocal arrangements? Can he tell us the result of any study, if it has been done?

There has been a study of this, but we are left with the position that, if we were to accept the idea of bilateral tariff reductions between countries in the Market and countries outside which were not linked to our entry to the European Economic Community, this would mean that we should have to take on some of the difficulties and problems of entry without securing the advantages.

With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is why I asked if a study had been made of those cases in which it would be to our advantage to have such multilateral or bilateral reductions. Surely it has always been our policy that, where a bilateral reduction was of value to this country, we should go for it whatever it was. Why should this be excluded from the Common Market?

This would not apply to bilateral reductions simply between countries in the Common Market and applicants. It would be part of the general process of attempting to get reductions in tariffs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Great Britain's attempts to join the Common Market.

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts) on 6th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 665–72.]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that some of us on this side of the House are genuinely concerned to see the unity of the Continent of Europe and many of us believe that our continued application to join the Common Market is, rightly or wrongly, a divisive force in progress of the Common Market? Is it not, therefore, time we were a little less selfish and withdrew our application for the time being?

I think we are all concerned about the future of Europe, but I cannot accept that withdrawal of our application would be helpful, particularly in view of the strong support of our application by five of the six members of the Community.

In view of the fact that it is quite clear, or should be, to most hon. Members, that the future of Britain lies precisely in Europe, and that the main obstacle to our entry to the European Economic Community is the Head of the French Government, will not my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister reconsider the view that they have been developing lately and have further talks with General de Gaulle at the earliest possible moment?

We have already made it clear that we are ready to have talks with the French Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of personnel attached to the British Embassy in Bonn.

There are 118 United Kingdom-based and 164 locally-engaged staff.

What on earth do all these people find to do?

My hon. Friend asked for the total number of personnel attached to the British Embassy in Bonn; I think that I have answered his Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had on the proposals of the United Nations Secretary-General for a meeting between the Foreign Ministers of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend discussed this with U Thant on 1st February. We believe that U Thant's proposal deserves sympathetic and constructive attention. However, the desirability and timing of such a meeting may well depend on progress in the projected discussions on the Middle East between the representatives to the United Nations of the Four Powers.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there would be great advantage not only in having a meeting of this kind simply to carry forward discussions on the Middle East but in having a regular series of consultations between Foreign Ministers of the kind that used to take place in the years immediately after the war?

This, I believe, is what U Thant had in mind, and in his discussions with my right hon. Friend the possibility of such a series of meetings was discussed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will resume discussions with the Argentine Government on the question of the Falkland Islands.

There have already been further exchanges of views with the Argentine authorities, and I expect these to continue.

Given the fact that it has always been made clear that there could be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the inhabitants, is not the re- sumption of these discussions very much in the interests not only of this country in order to improve our relations with Latin America generally, but also in the interests of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands?

My hon. Friend has put very cogently and succinctly what my right hon. Friend has put very clearly in the House.

Since the wishes of the Falkland Islanders to remain British are well known and accepted by everyone, can the Minister give the House an assurance that the question of sovereignty will not be discussed in any resumption of talks?

It would be impossible to avoid having the question of sovereignty raised by the Argentinians—this is their point of dispute—but my right hon. Friend made it very clear in his statement to the House that if that question is raised, our basic and firm position is that no transfer is possible against the wishes of the islanders.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether it was with his approval that Her Majesty's Ambassador sought a meeting with President de Gaulle on 4th February, 1969;

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies, apart from other Western European Union members, were informed about the conversation between General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador; and on what date or dates this was done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now place in the Library copies of Her Majesty's Ambassador's record of his conversation with General de Gaulle on 4th February, of the version of this record which was communicated by Her Majesty's Government to other Governments, and of the commentary upon it which was transmitted to such Governments at the same time.

These matters were thoroughly discussed in this House on 24th and 25th February, and again on 4th and 6th of March, when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister replied to Questions about this. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 778, c. 1088–1107, 1337–48;Vol. 779, c. 214–18, 665–72.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a mystery about why the British Ambassador was placed in an absurd position by being sent to General de Gaulle to have an offer indicated in detail, when the outline of what the President would suggest was well known in advance? Is it not the case that the British Government had done no contingency planning for dealing with the Ambassador's report and, therefore, placed themselves in an embarrassing position?

If my hon. Friend will forgive my saying so, I do not think that what he says makes sense at all. It is part of an Ambassador's normal duties to discuss matters of common concern with the Head of the Government to which he is accredited. One could not reasonably assume that one would know in advance of a conversation what would be said in it, and there was no embarrassing position.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny reports that France is to continue to boycott the Council of Ministers of the W.E.U.?

I am not in a position to confirm or deny that at present.

In view of the breaches of confidentiality which have already occurred, and in view of the suggestion that the Foreign Office has intentionally distorted the record in order to create mischief between France and her neighbours, would it not be as well if the record were published?

As I said previously, that would be a most unusual step to take, and it would be justified only if the accuracy of the record were seriously challenged. I think that the only person to challenge it now is the hon. Gentleman.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that some of us think that the matter was handled beautifully, on the basis that an occasional kick in the teeth might do de Gaulle good?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must say that we must try to avoid that kind of presentation. I believed then, and I have believed firmly since, that the line taken by Her Majesty's Government was correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official protest he has received from the Portuguese Government regarding the entry into Great Britain in 1968 of Dr. Eduardo Mondlane.

Shortly before Dr. Mondlane was due to visit this country in March, 1968, the Portuguese Ambassador called on the Permanent Under-Secretary of the Foreign Office to express the hope that Dr. Mondlane would be prevented from coming here. The Permanent Under-Secretary explained our laws and traditions affecting foreign visitors who are opposed to the policies of Governments with which we maintain friendly relations.

Everyone in the House will welcome the British Government's reiteration of civilised principles in this matter, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a persistent rumour that the tender put in by the British-led consortium for the huge Cabora Bassa dam in Mozambique was turned down because of political and not commercial motives? Will my right hon. Friend either deny or confirm this rumour, if he is able to do so?

I could not accept that statement. I have no evidence that this was so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs why the business community in Singapore was not given the opportunity to represent its views in private to the Duncan Committee when it visited Singapore.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs informed the hon. Gentleman on 10th February, representatives of the business community met members of the Committee at the High Commissioner's house. On that occasion, those who wished to do so were able to speak privately to the visitors.—[Vol. 777, c. 197–8.]

If that is so, how is it that there is this feeling in Singapore that the committee dealt in generalities, and that there were not adequate working sessions for practical discussions?

With respect, that is not the information I have. I am informed that the meeting with the representatives of the British business community which preceded the lunch—time was set apart from lunch for this discussion—brought out a number of very useful and constructive ideas about further improving the co-operative efforts between the business community in Singapore and Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of those occasions since 194? on which the Four Power Agreements relating to the administration of Berlin have been breached; and on how many of these occasions have official protests been made by one or more of the Four Powers concerned.

It would not be possible to provide information about all the occasions since 1945 without a disproportionate amount of research and expense. With permission, I will therefore arrange to have a list of the protests against infringements of the quadripartite status of Berlin since the beginning of 1966 circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Would my hon. Friend indicate what is the balance of protest between the two sides? Secondly, in view of the behaviour of the East German Government and East German troops during the Czech crisis of last summer, will my hon. Friend indicate what protection exists for members of the United Nations, including Czechoslovakia, Britain, France and the United States, against provocative action take by East German troops?

On the second point, the protection is what is laid down, partly by the Four Power Agreement on Berlin, and partly by other international instruments. On my hon. Friend's first point, I think there were three protests by the United States, this country and France for every two by the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a conference involving jointly the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association countries.

No, Sir. Such a conference would need to have a clear purpose, and be one which would produce results. I am not aware of any widespread support for such a conference at the present time.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that to equate the term "Common Market" with Europe is mischievous and most misleading and also that the successive abortive efforts to join the Common Market have proved economically damaging and politically embarrassing? Ought we not now to give a lead for a much broader concept of Europe, which would include the E.F.T.A. countries and perhaps ultimately lead to a rapprochement with Eastern Europe?

Of course the terms "Common Market" and "Europe" are not synonymous, but our application is viewed with favour by our friends in E.F.T.A. and regarded as a pioneering step for application by other countries. When I have spoken on this subject in the past, I have always made clear that we must not lose sight of the important task of getting a better understanding with Eastern Europe.

Before any steps are taken for such a conference, is the right hon. Gentleman taking steps to clear up the row which has broken out between Britain and other countries about imports of fish?

The question of imports of fish goes rather wide of this Question, but as I said, we are not proposing to call such a conference at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what committees and other bodies within, or associated with, the United Nations are concerned, on a continuing basis, with the questions of apartheid and of South-West Africa; what are their functions; what progress they have made in their work; and what is the cost to United Kingdom public funds.

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

Is it not a pity that the list is rather long? Have these bodies or this expenditure achieved anything? Have they affected South African policy in any way? How does Article 2(7) of the Charter stand in relation to them?

I think they are very much in conformity with Article 2(7). On the first point made by the hon. Member, we believe there is a duty for the U.N. to keep this issue, which disturbs the conscience of the world, before the eyes of the world. It is not easy to calculate the British contribution to this particular exercise, as I think the hon. Member will agree. I have attempted such a calculation. Apart from our contribution to U.N. funds generally which finance this kind of operation, we have made a substantial contribution to the United Nations education and training programme for Southern Africa.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the full intention of the United Kingdom to co-operate in every possible way with United Nations agencies on this issue of the investigaation and exposure of apartheid?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall do everything that we can to co-operate in any practical policy to oppose apartheid.