asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest appraisal he has made of the domestic economic and political effects upon Rhodesia of the policy of sanctions; and when he expects an initiative from the Rhodesian Government providing a basis for further constitutional changes.

We are satisfied that sanctions are having a substantial economic effect, but we cannot predict what initiatives the illegal régime will take. Nothing it has said so far provides the basis for an honourable settlement.

Would not it be much happier if the Government's policy were aligned with reality and not with myth, and would the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever might be the economic effects of sanctions they are just not producing the political conditions that were foreseen by the Government?

We prefer our estimates of what sanctions are doing to Rhodesia. The régime's figures are selective and tailored to convey the kind of impression that the hon. Gentleman seems to want, but those figures do not warrant our changing our assessment that the Rhodesian economy is in a state of stagnation.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the sanctions policy might be pursued with rather greater vigour, that greater publicity might be given to the report of the United Nations Sanctions Committee, and that more active steps should be taken to stop up the holes which undoubtedly exist?

The policy of sanctions is being pursued with the utmost vigour.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has received and what discussions he is undertaking concerning a Rhodesian settlement with the Prime Minister of the Republic of South Africa.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 17th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 22–3.]

Does that reply mean that the Government have now abandoned altogether any prospect of a friendly Power—namely, South Africa—mediating in this long-standing quarrel with Rhodesia?

No. As my hon. Friend indicated on 17th February, from time to time we have discussions with the South African Government, as with other African Governments, about the Rhodesian situation; but obviously those discussions are confidential.

What recent representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the South African Government about the unlawful presence of South African forces on British territory?

Representations have been made on a number of occasions to the South African Government about their unauthorised presence. The South African Government are very well aware of our views on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the export of Rhodesian ore and mineral products.

No figures for exports of Rhodesian mineral ores and products have been published by the régime since the illegal declaration of independence. Exports of mineral products continue but I would prefer to say nothing at this stage which might reveal the extent of our knowledge of the complicated and expensive means used as this would only be of benefit to the régime.

Is not that entirely understandable? Is it not the case that chrome ore, a highly strategic material, is being exported to Soviet Russia and China, directly or indirectly? What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?

The public statement by the chairmen of the two mineral corporations with substantial interests in Southern Rhodesia indicates that there is considerable concern about the future of the chrome, asbestos, ferro-alloy and nickel industries of Rhodesia. We are quite sure that the Rhodesian economy is in a state of stagnation and that the mineral industry is in considerable difficulties.

Is my hon. Friend aware that since U.D.I. Rhodesia has become one of the six largest exporters of copper?

That may well be true.

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 this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent exchanges with Mr. Smith's Government.

I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 11th of March.—[Vol. 779. c. 269–70.]

Will the Foreign Secretary at least confirm that discussions are continuing in Salisbury in an effort to reach a compromise agreement?

No. I do not think I would put it that way. So far we have not received anything which could be described as a plan or genuine proposal.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many people in this country who would think that any discussions with the Smith régime were most unlikely to lead to an acceptable result?

I think the general opinion in this country is that it was right for us to make the offer that was made on "Fearless" but it would be wrong to make any substantial departure from it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current annual cost to public funds and in foreign exchange, respectively, of Her Majesty's Embassy, Paris.

The current estimated annual cost of Her Majesty's Embassy in Paris to the Diplomatic Service Vote is £910,000, on which £697,000 is in foreign exchange.

Now that the wholly admirable attempt by the British Ambassador in Paris to establish a dialogue with the French President has been successfully sabotaged, how does the hon. Gentleman reckon we shall obtain value for money on this expenditure? Does the hon. Gentleman have it in mind to supplement the embassy with a posse of policemen, or to send a gunboat up the Seine?

No, Sir. I am satisfied that we are getting the utmost value for this money.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied about the size of our embassies in Paris and Bonn? Are not they too big?

I should not think so. The establishment of and expenditure on these posts is constantly and very vigorously reviewed. The Duncan Committee is engaged in examining all posts, and is still to report. From the inquiries that I have been able to make it seems to me that comparable posts sustained by other European countries in London are in line with the kind of establishments that I have described.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the subjects about which the President of France suggested that Britain should initiate bilateral Anglo-French discussions during the course of his meeting with the British Ambassador on 4th February.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to initiate discussions with France to promote the co-operation of European nation-States in evolving common political, military and economic arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonweath Affairs why the member countries of the European Free Trade Association were not informed of General de Gaulle's offer of talks on the future of Western Europe.

These matters were very fully discussed in the House on 24th and 25th February, and both I and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister have since replied to Questions about them on a number of occasions. I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 778, c. 1088–1107, 1337–48.]

The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imply on those occasions that the French President had suggested a British initiative of discussions on all the ideas that he had suggested. Is it not a fact that the President's suggestion for a British initiative related exclusively to bilateral discussions with this country, and was not that wholly understandable in view of the lack of interest which the Foreign Office has always displayed in such bilateral discussions?

No, Sir. The idea was that we should initiate talks which would concern economic, monetary, political, and defence matters, and at the same time as this suggestion was made there was an expression of views on matters which clearly concerned our allies in Western Europe.

With reference to Question No. 10, would the Foreign Secretary agree that our contribution would very much more match British temperament and institutions if we conducted the much desired friendly and closer relations with Europe within the framework of nation States rather than by signing the much more tightly drawn Treaty of Rome?

No, Sir. This is a matter which will probably come up in the debate. The policy of Her Majesty's Government, with the support of the three major political parties in this country, is to maintain our application to join the European Economic Community.

Mrs. Renée Short, whose Question has been answered with this one—Mr. Winnick, Question No. 4.

Sir Gerald Nabarro, Question No. 14.

On a point of order. Did I understand you to say, Mr. Speaker, that my Question 13 was for some extraordinary reason linked with Question No. 3?

Order. I cannot comment on whether the reason was extraordinary. The Question was, however, answered.

Further to that point of order. Is it not usual for reasonable Government Departments to advise Members when their Questions are being linked?

This is something the hon. Lady must take up with the Minister concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action has been taken by his Department to help to achieve a ceasefire in the Nigerian civil war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken this month to bring about peace in Nigeria.

We have consistently made known our readiness to help both sides to reach a peaceful solution, including a ceasefire, most recently through our efforts to arrange a meeting between them during the recent Commonwealth Conference. Action to achieve a ceasefire alone would not be helpful unless it were supervised and arranged under conditions that could lead on to a lasting peaceful settlement. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be discussing our efforts to promote peace in his talks with General Gowon in a few days' time.

In view of the resumption of bombing in Biafra, involving a number of civilian victims last week, would the Foreign Secretary consider making further representations to the Nigerian Government on the whole question of bombing raids?

I will consider that, but I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that my right hon. Friend is going to see General Gowon very shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of us who just gave the Government the benefit of the doubt in the debate 10 days ago are very impatient that Britain should be seen to make further efforts to achieve some kind of arms limitation soon inside or outside the United Nations?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Member will remember what I said about arms limitation in that debate. For this to be effective—and I should like to see it effective—it will have to be supervised inside both parts of Nigeria. That would be bound up with the possibility of a cease-fire and the opening of discussions. I earnestly hope that we shall be able to make some progress in that direction.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it would be a good idea when the Prime Minister visits Nigeria if he plucked up his courage and made every effort to go into Biafra to see what other hon. Members have seen for themselves?

The hon. Member will realise that to visit the territory of someone who in law is a rebel leader is an unusual step. My right hon. Friend would not be averse from this, but, of course, it would clearly depend on whether Colonel Ojukwu was ready to receive him. On many aspects of this subject it has been the unwillingness of Colonel Ojukwu that has obstructed attempts for peace.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about supervision of a cease-fire, will the Prime Minister be raising with the Prime Minister of Nigeria the possibility of a United Nations supervision of a cease-fire and also the limitations of arms by the main suppliers?

I cannot predict exactly the course of the talks, naturally, but I believe that if we could get this done through the Organisation for African Unity there would be more hope of getting action than through the United Nations, which, for a number of reasons, is averse to handling this matter. There is a considerable view in the United Nations that this is an internal matter and outside its competence. I do not rule this out, but I believe the Organisation for African Unity is the body with which we ought to keep chiefly in touch.

Has our delegate to the United Nations been instructed to raise this question with other delegations there with a view to having a resolution passed imposing a total embargo on sales of arms to Nigeria?

No, Sir. For reasons which I have explained, we have not given instructions of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement redefining the present objectives of British policy towards a settlement in Nigeria, in view of the protracted nature of the war against Biafra.

I gave a full account of our policy during the debate on Nigeria on 13th March. Her Majesty's Government seek an early end to the fighting, effective relief of the distress occasioned by the war, and a settlement by negotiation which will provide a basis for lasting peace and progress for all the peoples of Nigeria.—[Vol. 779, c. 1689–94.]

Despite what my right hon. Friend has said about Britain's efforts to get peace, does he not agree that, given the present total stalemate between Nigeria and Biafra, it is implicit in British policy, as it has been so far, that there should be a federal military victory? Surely he should not raise hopes of peace if the Government are not prepared to back a negotiated settlement wholeheartedly?

I have said very often that this is Her Majesty's Government's policy, that we do believe that the unity of Nigeria should be maintained, but that this should be a unity on the basis of a federal State which will give a proper place to the Ibos as to the other peoples of Nigeria.

Since a principal justification of the Government's policy in sending arms to Lagos was that this would lead to a speedy end of the war, and as precisely the opposite has happened, is not the time now ripe for a review of both aims and means?

No. The hon. Gentleman is misinformed. Every humane person would have hoped for a speedy end to this war, but the hon. Gentleman will not find that the Government have ever based their policy on that assumption. We have based our policy on the belief that tribal secession would be a great danger both to Nigeria and to Africa as a whole. We hope that the Ibo people will realise that, short of the dismemberment of Nigeria, a settlement is possible that gives them their proper place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what inquiries he has made of the Federal Government of Nigeria about the bombing of civilian targets in Biafra; what reply he has received; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what request for information has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Federal Government of Nigeria concerning the bombing of civilians in Biafra by aircraft of the Federal Government; and what reply has been received.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further inquiries Her Majesty's Government have made of the Federal Government of Nigeria regarding the bombing of civilians in Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received from the Federal Government of Nigeria regarding civilian damage caused in Biafra by bombing.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Moonman) on 17th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 31–2.]

Could my right hon. Friend say whether he has made any inquiries about the attacks by MiG fighters on the airstrip at Uli reported by the International Red Cross? As this appears to be a stepping up of the harassment of the relief operation, does not be think that this is something on which the Government ought to make representations?

I do not believe that that incident can be represented as my hon. Friend represents it. I would draw his attention to the fact that instructions to the Nigerian Air Force include these words:

"Efforts will be made to preserve as many lives as possible. You will not bomb any non-military targets. Any gathering of any civilian population will be avoided."

If the instructions given to the Federal Government with regard to bombing are, in fact, supporting British policy, why are we pussy-footing around supplying small arms and ammunition and why is not the R.A.F. itself in action in this affair?

I think this has been explained many times to the House. When Nigeria became an independent country it was understood that she would be able to rely on supplies from this country of the kind of arms which she had previously received. I think that was the right assurance to give her. We are under no obligation to do more than that. To do less would mean a condonation of the secession.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the bombing of civilians continued after his meeting with the Federal High Commissioner, as I know, because I was in Biafra at the time? As to the instructions to which he referred, will Her Majesty's Government now ask Lagos not merely to stop the bombing but to stop the fighting and negotiate, as the Biafrans have offered to do?

I have already answered a Question about the possibility of a cease-fire, which must be bound up with the stoppage of the supply of arms. We must understand that a solution to this problem must rest on the position of one Nigeria, not two Nigerias.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many on the benches behind him support him to the hilt in whatever help he gives to the Lagos Government? We know that Egyptian pilots flying Soviet planes are doing the bombing, but this indiscriminate bombing gives the Lagos Government a bad image with world opinion. Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister be conveying this view on his visit to Lagos?

Yes, Sir. I agree with what my hon. Friend says, and we have already made this point very clear to the Nigerian Government.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is by now seized of the deep anxiety on both sides of the House and in the country about this aspect of the Nigerian civil war? Does not this reinforce the suggestion made the other day by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas Home) about the need for international observers—it does not matter whether they are from the United Nations or the O.A.U.—in Biafra?

Yes, Sir. I think that I made this clear in the concluding part of my speech to the House the other day. But I gave my reasons then for believing that action through the Organisation for African Unity is more likely to be successful than action through the United Nations. I would not want to be dogmatic about this, but I believe that the evidence is all in that direction.

While I recognise the importance of the question of bombing, may I urge my right hon. Friend to consider that the stopping of the war is what matters? Will he press on the Nigerian Government that Colonel Ojukwu has said many times that he is ready for talks about a cease-fire and negotiations without any pre-conditions?

It would have been possible for Colonel Ojukwu's representatives in this country to take part in talks at the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, but, unhappily, they refused.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will have talks with the representative of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam when she is in Great Britain at Easter.

No, Sir.

Since any peace in South Vietnam abviously would require the support and active participation of the National Liberation Front, why does the Foreign Office not take the opportunity of the visit of Madame Binh at Easter-time to have conversations with the leading representative of the N.L.F.?

We do not recognise the National Liberation Front in any way, nor do we accept its claim to speak for South Vietnam, but, should North Vietnam as a member of the 1954 and 1962 Geneva Conferences have any communication to make to my right hon. Friend as the British co-Chairman, it has a number of channels through which it could if it wished send a representative here for that purpose.

Will my hon. Friend reconsider that decision? Would it not be a good thing for the Government to have talks with the representative of the National Liberation Front to find how a number of my hon. Friends were conned into misleading the House by the opinion they gave it on numerous occasions—that if only America would stop the bombing peace would ensue?

I have nothing to say on the subject of conning, but we have no reason to think that Madame Binh's views are different from those made public by her delegation in Paris after each session of talks, or for that matter during her last visit here, and I assume that while here she will be repeating them at the rally which she is to address.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that there are 2,000 vacant primary school places and 50,000 residents in Hong Kong's Wongtauhum Resettlement Estate; and if he will direct the Hong Kong Government to set up an inquiry into the reasons for these empty classrooms with a view to remedying the cause.

There are some 2,500 vacant primary school places in this estate, all but 79 of these occurring in private schools. A detailed survey of children not attending school is in progress.

Would my hon. Friend agree that this number of vacant school places, wherever it is, is a very serious problem? Would he agree that it arises basically from a low level of wage payments in Hong Kong and also from the lack of a compulsory education system? Will he get in touch with the Governor to discuss these matters to see what solution can be found?

An explanation of these vacancies is complicated by the fact that there is an attendance of several thousand Wongtauhum children at primary schools elsewhere and by the occupation of many places in the estate schools by other children from neighbouring districts. The vacancy figures reflect the attraction of free places and low fees in Government and subsidised schools. If the survey indicates the need for more such places, remedial action will be taken at once.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will advise the Hong Kong Government on the measures needed to establish a family assistance scheme aimed at encouraging parents to send their children to school.

As already announced in the Colony's Legislative Council, the Hong Kong Government are drawing up proposals for a comprehensive organised public assistance scheme, one aim of which will be to ensure that no child is deprived by financial hardship of the opportunity to go to primary school.

Is my hon. Friend aware that all of us interested in Hong Kong welcome this and will encourage the Government to still further good deeds?

I thank my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ensure that the Security Council Resolution tabled by the United Kingdom delegate on the Middle East and freedom of passage of the ships of all nations in peace and in war through the Suez Canal is observed when the Canal is opened.

We are continuing to do all we can to bring about a settlement in accordance with the Security Council Resolution of 22nd November, 1967, which affirms the necessity for guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the Middle East area.

Will the hon. Gentleman reaffirm that Her Majesty's Government regard the withdrawal to the armistice lines and the acceptance of these frontiers as two propositions which are quite indivisible so far as this Resolution is concerned?

We are in favour of the earliest possible implementation by agreement of the whole of the Resolution, which contains the original points made by the hon. Member and the one he has just mentioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if the Egyptians do not shortly open the canal it will become a wasting asset? Already 53 British ships sail daily round the Cape, and with big tankers this trend is likely to continue.

The sooner it is opened the better for everyone. What my hon. Friend has said is very much in our minds because we have an interest in its early opening.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in his efforts to secure the release of the British ships detained by Egypt in the Bitter Lakes.

I hope that it will be possible before long to proceed with the survey of the southern exit of the canal.

Is it not perfectly clear after 21 months that at the present rate the ships will never be freed until the canal has silted up? In view of the fact that Egypt has no legal title to the canal, is it not time for international action to clear it on the lines successfully taken in 1957?

I will not go into the reasons why this successful action was made necessary at the time. Addressing myself to the last point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which I know is a serious point, the question of legality here is one of great difficulty and complication. I would add that as of now substantial progress has been made in very delicate negotiations involving both sides, the ship owners and insurers. I hope that before long it may be possible to survey with the intention of evacuating through the southern exit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the canal were cleared the nation most likely to benefit would be Soviet Russia? Even if the canal is cleared the large tankers are likely to go round by the Cape route.

I think everybody would benefit from the release of these ships from the canal.

While I appreciate the delicate nature of the discussions, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend recognises that any agreement should take into account the free passage for ships of all nations when the whole thing is made viable?

That is part of the larger question which in turn is one of the aspects of the general solution which we are striving to achieve. Before such a general solution can be agreed, the point which my hon. Friend has made must be part of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the United Nations resolution proposing the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in Africa; and what report has been made by the Organisation of African Unity on studies made with a view to implementing this resolution.

The resolution in question invited the Organisation of African Unity to initiate these studies, but no report has yet been issued.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, as the original Resolution was passed overwhelmingly by 105 votes to nil some four years ago, any stimulus we might give in this rather contentious area would be greatly welcomed?

Certainly. The Resolution was unanimously adopted, and we supported it. We take the view—this is a general view held by other members of the United Nations—that this kind of arrangement is primarily for the countries concerned in the area concerned.

Since N.A.T.O. has now decided that the so-called tactical nuclear weapons cannot be used without disaster in a land battle, will my hon. Friend also propose a nuclear-free zone for Europe?

We are certainly ready to take part in any meaningful and practical discussions which will, through political action, prepare for exactly that sort of position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Associated States of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which my right hon. Friend made on 19th March, to which I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 780. c. 493–506.]

The Minister will recall the Answer of the Foreign Secretary to Question No. 4. If the Prime Minister cannot visit Biafra because it is in rebellion, why did this Minister visit Anguilla which was equally in rebellion? Further, why when he arrived at the airport did he make the announcement of his terms before going into consultation with the people of Anguilla prior to announcing his terms? What evidence has the hon. Gentleman actually adduced which has been corroborated by other sources of these undesirable elements before sending over 200 parachutists to deal with them?

What took place at the airport was that Mr. Webster gave me a welcome and, significantly, asked everyone to ensure my safety and security, and then invited me to put forward the proposals, which I did. Those proposals were accepted wholeheartedly by 500 people at the airport. Precisely because those proposals were accepted by those people, I was run off the island by people who had decided immediately on my arrival that I should be sent off, because my aircraft was stopped from leaving the airfield in order to take me away.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern some of us feel at the use of school buildings as barracks and offices by the police and the army? Will he do all in his power to ensure that the schools are returned to their proper use at the earliest possible moment?

Yes. This is an entirely temporary arrangement, and I would hope that as soon as possible the people of Anguilla can return to their normal activities. They will be better able to do so if the small minority who are there now making Mr. Lee's job very difficult are stopped from doing just that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if the proposals to which he has referred, which were all that the Anguillan leaders were asking for last year, had been conceded to them when they were over here, there would have been no need for this situation to have arisen and no need to have sent military forces?

Those proposals were not necessarily what the Anguillan leader was asking for during the talks last October. In any case, if they were so acceptable to the Anguillan leader, why was it that he came and told me to leave the island immediately after the meeting?

Will my hon. Friend in due course give an undertaking to let the House have full details of these Mafia-like elements in Anguilla, and in view of the obvious unpopularity of our Commissioner, Mr. Lee, will he undertake to replace Mr. Lee in order to show our appreciation of the aspirations of the people of Anguilla?

There will be a debate on foreign affairs at a later stage today, and no doubt all those points will come out during the debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his further discussions with Argentina on all outstanding matters including the Falkland Islands.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if discussions are continuing with the Argentine on the future of the Falkland Islands; and what progress is being made towards an agreed position.

Further discussions about the Falkland Islands have taken place with the Argentine authorities, and these are continuing; but there is nothing of substance that I can add to the statements which my right hon. Friend made in the House on 11th and 12th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 424–43 and 608–14.]

As Her Majesty's Government have made it perfectly clear in the House over and over again that in no circumstances will they hand over the Falkland Islands to the Argentine, what is the purpose of these continuing discussions?

It is impossible to exclude from these talks the main subject of dispute between us and the Argentine. However, we have made absolutely clear to the Argentine and to the world what our posture is on the question of sovereignty. There are also other questions relating to communications and good and fruitful relations between the islands and the mainland which can very usefully be pursued.

Is it not reprehensible that these talks should continue when the question of sovereignty is bound to be on the agenda where the Argentine is concerned?

I said that the raising of this question cannot be excluded. Equally, what we shall say in relation to it cannot be excluded, which has been made perfectly clear to the House and to the Argentine by my right hon. Friend.

Can the Minister of State confirm that the people of the Falkland Islands and their representative bodies, who have never wished to have any change of sovereignty at any time, are now completely convinced that despite these continuing talks with the Argentine there is no question of any transfer of sovereignty?

I think that this is the firm impression and knowledge of the islanders. I know of no representations to us from them which would carry any other implication.

Given the fact that repeatedly it has been made clear that there would be no question of transferring sovereignty against the wishes of the people of the Falkland Islands, is it not manifestly in the interests above all of those people that we should continue these discussions, which may restore far more friendly relations both between ourselves and the Argentine and between these people and the Argentine?

Yes. That in itself is an important and necessary objective.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following the two proposals made by Her Majesty's Government at the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee to establish on-site inspections and phasing operations, what progress has been made by the Committee; and if he will make a statement.

Much interest was shown in the suggestions we put forward in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee last year, and many delegations shared our view that on the nuclear side priority should be given to a comprehensive test ban. We hope that continued discussion at the current session of the Committee, which began on 18th March, will lead to further progress.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that there will be considerable satisfaction at the remarks made by my right hon. Friend and that many hon. Members appreciate the work that is being done? Does he realise that any further information or encouragement would be welcome and helpful?

I shall do my best to ensure that the House is kept informed of progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that in the Government's view the decision to build a limited A.B.M. system known as Safeguard need in no way compromise progress in Geneva?

I think that is a different and much larger question.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. The Question to which I asked a supplementary question plainly includes the further question "What progress has been made?" The Foreign Secretary has missed that.

Order. I cannot comment on Minister's answers. Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he proposes to take at the United Nations in connection with the continued Russian military occupation of Czechoslovakia.

I have nothing to add to what I told my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 17th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 12–13.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if the United Nations continues trying to ignore the occupation of one member by another it will go the same way as the old League of Nations? Is it not possible for Her Majesty's Government to take an initiative to enable the United Nations at least to put on record that it will neither forget not forgive the rape of Czechoslovakia?

This has been done, and we have been prompt and precise in our own contribution to that condemnation. This question remains on the agenda of the United Nations so that it can be discussed again at an appropriate time if necessary. I would add that the Government of Czechoslovakia have said that they do not wish this question to be discussed further in the United Nations.

Would the right hon. Gentleman commend the Czech and the Slovak nations for giving the world a lead by defending their national life by moral, non-violent means and by not resorting to the use of military violence in defence of their national freedom?

I think we all admire the posture and temper of the Czech and Slovak nations in their very difficult situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies are now being carried out in his Department on alternatives to entry into the Common Market following President Nixon's visit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, during President Nixon's visit, alternatives to Great Britain's entry into the Common Market were discussed with him.

Full membership of the European Communities remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and no alternatives are being studied. The discussions which took place with President Nixon during his recent visit have in no way altered the Government's view that this policy is the right one.

Does not that reply represent an utter lack of imagination and flexibility on the part of the Foreign Office? Are we to go on for another 10 years saying that our application is in and that we have no alternative? Is it not time that we had a look at the whole question and examined the proposals for a free trade area put forward by General de Gaulle and made some progress on this? We cannot go on for ever like this.

Imagination is one thing; moonshine is another. There would be no point in pretending that alternatives were open when it is clear that they are not open.

Is there absolutely no limit to the time that Her Majesty's Government are content to wait without encouragement, and no limit to the time in which they will pursue this policy, if that be the mot juste, of sterile passivity in this matter?

No, Sir. I do not think anyone would say on any aspect of policy that one could use the word "never" or say that a particular posture should be pursued without limit. What I do say is that in the light of present information it would be quite wrong for us to make a change of policy.

Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that though the Foreign Office may feel unable to talk about these subjects, at least it is still able to think about them?

I assure my right hon. Friend of that. These alternative possibilities, of course, have been examined in the past, but neither that examination nor any response we get from anywhere else justifies us in abandoning the policy which we are now pursuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have been made in Government policy on the application to join the Common Market since the statement by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at the Western European Union Council at The Hague on 4th July, 1967; and if he will make a statement.

The reasons for Her Majesty's Government's application and the issues to be dealt with in the course of negotiations remain as set out in my predecessor's statement. While negotiations are prevented from starting, we are determined to achieve progress towards European unity in other ways, and will continue to pursue policies to that end.

How can the Government reconcile their opposition to the agricultural levy system, which we on this side of the House propose, with their support for entry into the Common Market, which will incorporate the levy system? Is it not time for the Government to stop their spaniel-like attitude on the backdoor mat of the Common Market, to throw this dead duck to the spaniel, and withdraw their application?

I find it a little difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman through the back door and the dead ducks. We are not trying to get entry through a back door. The question of our application, so far from being a dead duck, is supported by all three political parties in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We understand that this country's entry Into the European Economic Community will involve acceptance of the Community's agricultural policy. What we do with the agricultural policy when we are not members of the Community is a different question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that although there are still some hon. Members who accept the political ideology of the Treaty of Rome, that ideology has now been rejected by one of the leading members of the E.E.C.?

I am aware of that, but it does not alter the truth of what I said. Her Majesty's Government's policy has the support of the three main political parties in this country.

I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman put that to a free vote he might get quite a different answer. In using W.E.U., is not he in grave danger of misusing it and destroying a most valuable European Treaty as a back-door means of trying to get into the Common Market, which is a thoroughly vicious attitude?

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we are trying to use W.E.U. as a back door to get into the Common Market, he does not understand the first thing about it. It could not be so used. While our application to join the Communities is blocked, it is all the more important to seek co-operation in all fields in which it can be sought, and co-operation in W.E.U. is one of them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that the pace of European integration should not be dependent upon President de Gaulle—and that is the view of the Leader of the Opposition—any more than the pace of Britain in the 1950s? Will the right hon. Gentleman take comfort from the fact that the Labour Party is no more bitterly opposed to the levy system than was the Conservative Party until a short time ago, and that we have equal hopes of converting the Labour Party as well?

I am not sure that I am called upon to reply to the right hon. Gentleman but I listened with interest.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that in this adventure in which he and his colleagues are engaged, the more they seem to exert pressure to get into the Common Market the more European relationships deteriorate? Is not the position very much worse than it was two years ago?

One of the remarkable things since the second veto on our application, compared with what happened after the first veto, has been the great determination of our friends in Europe to help us forward and their anxiety that we should keep the application going.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, contrary to the impression that has been given—that the whole House consists of ancient Britons—it actually consists of a very large number of modern Europeans?

Hon. Members must give themselves what labels they wish but I repeat with complete confidence that the policy of Her Majesty's Government on this matter has had, and still has, the support of the three main political parties in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now seek to enter into negotiations with the European Economic Community in order to reduce existing tariffs between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

We seek membership of the European Communities, one of the consequences of which would be to reduce existing tariffs between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community. But the Six have not been able to agree to opening negotiations with us.

Why should the reduction of selected tariffs on a bilateral basis between the United Kingdom and any of the countries in the E.E.C. within the terms of the G.A.T.T. be linked in any way with entry into the Common Market?

I am by no means certain that if they were not linked it would be in conformity with the G.A.T.T. We would not wish to enter an arrangement of this kind unless, first, we were clear that this was an invitation which came from all Six. We would want to know the nature of the proposals and whether linked with them there were any proposals about agriculture. It would also be reasonable for us to be sure that this was not intended simply as a substitute for membership of the Communities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on Government policy in relation to future meetings of the Council of Western European Union.

We shall continue to consult closely with our European partners in Western European Union on matters of foreign policy in the spirit in which we all agreed at Luxembourg. Our aim in thus working together will be to make full use of Western European Union for the purpose set out in the Revised Brussels Treaty of

"promoting unity and encouraging the progressive integration of Europe."

What is the precise significance of Lord Chalfont's appointment to the Council? What has happened to the proposals put forward by Herr Willy Brandt to resolve differences between France and her partners in W.E.U.?

I hope that it will be possible to resolve differences between France and her partners, and we shall pursue any reasonable course to that end. The significance of Lord Chalfont's appointment is that it shows the importance we attach to discussions in Western European Union.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up a point of some difficulty? Is it possible for decisions to be taken by those present, or is an affirmative vote by all Council members needed?

I would conclude, judging from practice in the Security Council of the United Nations and elsewhere, that unless a decision is positively objected to by somebody present at the time it should be taken as a valid decision.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the support for the Government's attitude to W.E.U. expressed last week by the German Foreign Minister? Is he aware that his robust policy on this issue gets wide support from the benches behind him?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now seek to withdraw the item of Monetary Reform from the Agenda of Western European Union in considering the policy to be followed by Her Majesty's Government towards future meetings of that body.

We have made it clear that we would be prepared to take part in discussion of international monetary policy in Western European Union as well as in other forums, but there is no item on monetary reform at present on the agenda.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. Does not he agree that discussions on international monetary reform in the absence of the United States are likely to be highly unfruitful and that there should be no question of committing our position to conservative European attitudes before discussions open with the United States?

For the reason I have given, this question does not at present arise.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is the Government's intention to pursue this and other discussions in Western European Union even at the risk of having its budget blocked and the organisation as a result brought to a standstill?

There is no question at all of the organisation being brought to a standstill. The rest of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is hypothetical.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the four-Power talks on the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) on 17th March. The recent clashes in the area once more underline the urgent need for a settlement.—[Vol. 780, c. 30–1.]

In view of the rapidly worsening situation, particularly between Egypt and Israel, is it not imperative that a four-Power conference be called without delay? If I may quote the Foreign Secretary, is not that a posture the Government could profitably pursue?

We hope that the four Powers will come together for composite discussions soon. We want such a meeting. In the meantime, we are taking a full part in discussions with the other permanent members of the Security Council on a bilateral basis.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the situation is rapidly deteriorating, and that possibly the last chances of averting war are disappearing? Can he say why the four Powers have not yet met, as the Secretary-General of the United Nations suggested last week that they would? Will my right hon. Friend in particular aim at getting a timetable for the implementation of the Security Council resolution at such a meeting? Will he use all his influence with the United States to implement that resolution?

Certainly. The main purpose of the four-Power meeting, when it takes place, will be to seek to suggest ways in which the resolution, which was unanimously adopted, can be implemented. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend as to the urgency of the situation as he described it.

In view of the deteriorating situation in the Middle East as a whole, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making elastic the date of our military withdrawal from the Gulf?

That is entirely another matter.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the implementation of the Security Council resolution can come about only if there is detailed discussion of the method of implementation? Does he also accept that this can occur only if both sides get together round the conference table?

It is certainly true that it is necessary for the four Powers to get down to substantive discussion on the form of discussion between the parties concerned. That in turn would be one of the things the four could discuss.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will invite the French Foreign Minister to visit Great Britain officially.

I have no plans to do so at present.

As the present Anglo-French rift, whoever we hold mainly responsible, is poisoning the whole European atmosphere, does not the Foreign Secretary think that such an invitation later this year might be timely? Will he be ready to hold out his "safe pair of hands" across the Channel?

I hope to meet my French colleague at any rate at the N.A.T.O. Ministerial meeting in Washington. I certainly do not rule out subsequent meetings. I simply said that I have no such plans at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made concerning the delays in the trial, in Delhi, of Mr. Walter Nash of Burnopfield, County Durham, on a charge of currency smuggling.

Our High Commissioner in New Delhi has made frequent representations about the continued delays in this case. We have given, and will continue to give, Mr. Nash all possible assistance. He was sentenced on 7th March but has appealed. The result of the appeal is not yet known.

I thank my hon. Friend and all the officers of his Department for the tremendous efforts they have made in this protracted case. What will be Mr. Nash's position with regard to returning home when he completes the prison sentence he is serving?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. Great efforts are made by our consular people to assist Britons in trouble all over the world, and all too often the work they do is little known. Mr. Nash was sentenced on three charges to what amounts to three months' imprisonment, and the magistrate took into consideration the period Mr. Nash had spent in detention. If his appeal is unsuccessful, he should be released at about the beginning of June, but we do not yet know when the appeal is to be heard.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position with regard to the Anglo-Maltese Defence Agreement.

The Agreement with Malta on Mutual Defence and Assistance was signed on 21st September, 1964, with a validity of ten years. It remains in force.

At the time when the Government so ineptly announced the reduction of forces in Malta, the Maltese Government denounced the Agreement. What has happened to the Agreement?

It is true that at the time of the forces' rundown the Maltese Government complained bitterly that they continue to afford to the British Armed Forces the rights and facilities in Malta to which the Agreement entitles them.