asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to give a full reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Croydon, South regarding the case of his constituent, Miss V. Blanchard.

I sent my hon. Friend a full reply on 14th April.

Is my hon. Friend aware that two young people who wish to marry are being kept apart because the man involved is being held by the Greek dictatorship without being brought to trial? Is he also aware that last week when I tried to see the person who is being held in prison in Greece the Greek authorities refused permission for me to do so?

Mr. Fragoulakis is not a British subject. If we made representation to the Greek Government on his behalf they would consider it an interference in their internal affairs, and the result would be more likely to prejudice his prospects of release than to improve them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking, in discharge of our constitutional responsibilities for defence and external affairs, to keep himself informed of the internal affairs in the islands of Nevis and St. Kitts.

I am kept informed of the situation in the Associated State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla by the British Government Representative in the Associated States.

As the real issue, as the Foreign Secretary told us in the debate on Anguilla, is that Anguilla was faced with corrupt tendencies in its administration, backed up by intimidation, is the Foreign Secretary not aware that the same may be said of St. Kitts? Why, therefore, do we have one policy towards Anguilla and another policy towards St. Kitts?

It is not Her Majesty's Government's view that the condition in the two islands is the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government of St. Kitts have now agreed to revise the Associated State Agreement in order to permit the secession of Anguilla from the State.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the St. Christopher, Nevis and Anguilla Agreement, 1967. Nothing has been agreed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla about the revision of the Agreement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is now unlikely that Anguilla will ever return voluntarily to association with St. Kitts, and that it would be unwise for either the British or the St. Kitts' Government to force the Anguillans to do so? If he agrees on that, will he seek an appropriate time to negotiate with Mr. Bradshaw the judicial secession of Anguilla from the Associated State?

I do not think that I should move from the position that I have previously expressed, that it is not our purpose to force upon the Anguillans any régime that they do not want. Beyond that, at this stage we must not try to pronounce what the settlement will be. A good deal of time and thought will be needed before we can be precise about that.

On a point of order. Before we leave the Anguillan question—[Interruption.] Am I to understand that I should raise my point of order at the end of Questions?

Yes. That would be better.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the situation in Anguilla.

The situation in Anguilla has, I am glad to say, taken a turn for the better. Mr. Cumber has had a number of meetings with Anguillan leaders of opinion and members of the public; at these a cordial atmosphere has prevailed. There have been some other indications of a reduction in tension and increased willingness to co-operate with Her Majesty's Commissioner.

As the only offensive weapons which have come to light in seven weeks' occupation by British troops of Anguilla are ten rifles, four pistols, two carbines and one anti-tank rifle, does not this make a laughing stock of the whole operation? Will the Foreign Secretary say how many rounds of ammunition have been found which fire out of the anti-talk rifle, and will he place the information in the Library?

No, I do not think that it can be regarded as a laughing stock. It was beyond doubt that there was a lawless and dangerous condition in Anguilla, and that is the opinion of any informed person.

Will my right hon. Friend clear up the position, over which there is still some mystery, of Mr. Tony Lee? Secondly, will he take great care that his forthcoming talks with Mr. Bradshaw are not misinterpreted on Anguilla to mean that we are betraying the interests of the Anguillans?

In reply to the last part of the question, we will take care to that effect. As for the first part of the question, I have now seen Mr. Lee. After his leave he will be employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and will not be returning to Anguilla. Mr. Cumber's name has been submitted to the Queen for appointment as Her Majesty's Commissioner.

In his discussions with Mr. Bradshaw, will the Foreign Secretary be discussing the whole problem in the context of wider association in the West Indies?

I do not want to prejudice the substance of the conversations, but they may range quite widely.

To what extent is the right hon. Gentleman trying to associate the independent countries of the Commonwealth with the long-term solution of this problem in association with us, and how far has he reached in that exercise? What form does he envisage that association might take?

I have had some discussions with representatives of independent Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean, but I thought that before going any further it was right to consult with Mr. Bradshaw.

Would my right hon. Friend consider carefully the possible appointment of a West Indian representative on the staff of the Commissioner in Anguilla?

I will consider that, yes.

While we are all very pleased that the situation in Anguilla has improved, has the right hon. Gentleman yet decided to issue a White Paper setting out all the details of and the justification for the intervention?

This has already been discussed fully in the House. I undertook to consider whether this was necessary, but I doubt whether it is necessary in view of information which has already been given to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority armed Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on 14th February, 1967.

No Royal Marines landed on Anguilla on that date.

Would the hon. Gentleman say what is meant by "Navy personnel" when he said that navy personnel had landed? This confirms the statement:

"H.M.S."Salisbury" landed territorial police in Anguilla on 15th February, 1967, supported by Royal Navy personnel …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd April, 1969; Vol. 782, c. 544.]

Order. Firstly, we cannot have quotations in Questions, and, secondly, questions should be reasonably brief.

Will the hon. Gentleman say why it was denied previously in the House of Lords?

The ship's platoon of 40 sailors was landed on that occasion in support of some 30 to 40 policemen. They were there to support the police when the latter were carrying out a search for weapons and were making some arrests in connection with the disturbances on the island on 4th February, 1967, when stones were thrown and a police officer was injured. The events now mentioned occurred only a few days before Statehood on 27th February, 1967, and they were obviously in no way an indication of mass opposition to Statehood.

On a point of order. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a supplementary question, completely to anticipate Question No. 32?

It is not in order for the hon. Gentleman to anticipate questions. It may be inevitable for a Minister, but it is unusual.

On a further point of order. Would it not have been in order for the Minister to have taken that Question with the other Question?

I am not responsible for that. The Question will be asked when it is reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give full particulars of the Royal Naval and other armed personnel landed on Anguilla on the 14th Febraury, 1967; and at whose request, and on whose authority, they were landed.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the account I gave of this matter on 23rd April. The operation was carried out at the request of the Government of the then colonial territory of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla under the general authority of the Senior Naval Officer West Indies to act in aid of the civil power in colonial territories.—[Vol. 782, c. 544.]

We have had so many confused and contradictory statements. Is it not absolutely clear now that opposition to Mr. Byron's installation in 1967 was apprehended? Why did Lord Beswick say, in another place, that the presence of these forces was not required?

There is confusion in the hon. Member's mind. My noble Friend in another place was probably dealing with the allegation that marines had landed on the island.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports have been submitted to Her Majesty's Commissioner in Anguilla of murders committed in the territory in the years 1967, 1968 and to date in 1969; how many of these murders are unsolved; how many prisoners are awaiting trial for murder; how many convicted murderers are in prison for murders committed since 1967; and where these prisoners are detained.

As I told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 1st May, a suspected case of murder on 2nd January, 1968, was reported. A person who is now on bail has been committed for trial on a charge of manslaughter in respect of this case. No other cases have been reported and the other parts of the Question do not therefore arise.—[Vol. 782, c. 270.]

Is not it within the recollection of the House that on 23rd April the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told us, in the context of the justification for military intervention in Anguilla, that there were undoubted cases of arson and murder? Are we now to understand that there were no proven cases of arson and no cases of murder? Does not this strengthen the demand from hon. Members on this side of the House for a full statement in a White Paper at the earliest opportunity?

There appears to have been some misunderstanding—I hope that it was not deliberate—about my right hon. Friend's meaning, which was that there had been only one case of murder, whereas there had been more than one case of arson. My right hon. Friend referred to it as an undoubted case at the time when it occurred, and until very recently, in the absence of any proper judicial arrangements on the island, it was generally considered to be a case of murder.

Order. We cannot comment further on a case which is apparently sub judice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose to the Security Council that arms supplies should be withheld from any Middle Eastern State obstructing a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict on the lines of the unanimous Security Council resolution of November, 1967.

I do not consider that a separate initiative of the sort proposed would help the efforts of the four Powers who are now discussing the Middle East situation in New York; though, as my right hon. Friend indicated in his reply to the right hon. Member for Devon. North (Mr. Thorpe) on 17th February, the subject may be raised during the talks.—[Vol. 778, c. 8–9.]

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that if the permanent members reach agreement on proposals for a settlement and they are endorsed by the Security Council, if then one of the countries of the Middle East refuses to accept the proposals, is it not quite unacceptable that it should go on being armed by one of the permanent members?

We should await the outcome of the four-Power talks which are making quite good progress and not anticipate difficulties of this sort, especially anticipatory intentions which might put difficulty in the way of the four-Power talks. I have said that it is possible, indeed quite likely, that the four Powers may consider the point raised by my hon. Friend.

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

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 28th April to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell).—[Vol. 782, c. 928.]

While welcoming the previous reply, which indicated that good progress has been made by the four-Power talks, could we be assured that they are taking place within the scope of the November, 1967, Resolution?

Yes, indeed. The talks are directed to a very careful examination of all the subjects contained in the November, 1967, Resolution.

Will my hon. Friend consider this as a very urgent matter since every day the present fighting continues it means that the Charter of the United Nations is more and more becoming regarded as a scrap of paper?

We are fully seized of the urgency of the situation for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend.

Since the Soviet Union now seem to have the greatest power in the Middle East, are Her Majesty's Government keeping in close touch with Moscow on this vital issue and are they getting all the co-operation which they desire?

Apart from the four-Power talks, there are bilateral talks going on. We welcome this as we welcome the Soviet initiative of 2nd January.

Is it not clear that if the Arab countries were prepared to accept and recognise the existence of Israel real progress could be made in relation to a peace settlement?

This is a fundamental part of the overall settlement for which we are working.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest representations made by Argentina in the talks which are taking place on the future of the Falkland Islands.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 24th March.—[Vol. 780, c. 1030–1.]

Is it not time that these talks were drawn to a close? As there is still a strong suspicion that the Government might surrender sovereignty for these islands, would not the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny absolutely that this is the intention?

In reply to the hon. Member when he last raised this matter, I was specific that there had been absolutely no change in the quite firm position made so clear by my right hon. Friend on numerous occasions in the House. I gladly restate that position today.

Since Her Majesty's Government have made clear many times that there is no question of the transfer of sovereignty for the Falkland Islands, is it not in the interests of the inhabitants of those islands that this country should establish the closest possible co-operation with the Argentine Government about the future of the islands?

I agree. My hon. Friend states the two parts of our policy fairly and fully. It is necessary to discuss; it is necessary to get the best possible relations with the Argentine. At the same time, we have made absolutely clear where we stand about the future of the Falklands.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman what there is to discuss with the Argentine over this matter? What are the arrangements which would be of such advantage to the Falkland Islanders that these discussions must go on, creating the impression that at the end of the day the question of sovereignty is to be discussed?

Clearly it is necessary to talk about the improvement of communications, which at the moment the hon. Gentleman knows are not at all good. There are other aspects of the relationship of these islands and the country nearest to them on the mainland which ought to be discussed. Discussing these matters does not for a moment mean that the position of the future sovereignty of the islands is in any way prejudiced.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any response whatever from the Argentine Government?

I can say that the discussions which have proceeded in the last few weeks have been amicable and reasonable and in no way have prejudiced the position which I have stated.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent official conversations with M. Debré.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he had about the future of Western European Union at his recent meeting with the French Foreign Minister.

I met Monsieur Debré on 11th April in Washington. The content of our conversation was confidential, but I took the opportunity to remind Monsieur Debré that, as we had already informed the French Government on 12th and 24th February, we are very willing to have talks with them provided that our partners are kept fully in the picture.

As soon as the new constellation of political forces emerges in France, will my right hon. Friend make it a top item on his agenda to have conversations with the new French Government with an absolutely clean slate? Secondly, does he think that this is a good moment to reaffirm that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to join the European Economic Community as soon as possible?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, Yes, Sir. As to the first part, I have made it clear already both in these conversations with M. Debré and elsewhere that we are desirous of talks with the French Government.

While recognising that these conversations are probably out of date already, would the right hon. Gentleman make a real attempt with the new Foreign Minister of France, when he is appointed, to come to an agreement about the future of W.E.U?

Yes, Sir. We are anxious to have French co-operation in Western European Union, whoever the French Government may be. We have made this clear repeatedly and shall go on doing so.

Will the Government do something that they have never done before and proceed on this matter with a certain amount of caution?

I do not know that the hon. Gentleman is always a particularly good adviser on caution. We shall proceed in the interests of this country and constantly in touch with our partners in Western European Union.

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

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) on 29th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 1152.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any reply has been sent to the recent proposals from Salisbury and whether Her Majesty's Government propose any new initiatives before the Rhodesian referendum, after which it will be too late?

We have not had anything from Salisbury which could be de scribed as a proposal or plan.

Will my right hon. Friend consider whether he could give us an adequate picture of the arrangements to be made for consulting the African people of Rhodesia about any settlement that is reached in order to avoid the disasters which followed the inadequate consultation in respect of the so-called Central African Federation?

My right hon. Friend will remember that one of the six principles and one of the terms of the "Fearless" proposals was that they should be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. I hope that it may be possible in due course to make a much fuller statement both on this point and on others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is now taking in order to alleviate the discriminatory treatment meted out to British nationals in the hands of the Russian and Chinese Governments.

We have no reason to complain of discrimination in the cases of Mr. Parsons and Mr. Lorraine, who are detained in the Soviet Union. There is a later Question about Mr. Brooke. As regards British subjects detained in China, we have made repeated representations here and in Peking for consular access and details of the charges against them without success. We shall continue to press the Chinese. The Governments of other nationals detained in China have also been unsuccessful in their approaches to the Chinese authorities.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we all know the reasons why our countrymen are being held? In the circumstances, would he not agree that soft diplomatic words are not always enough? Would he convene a conference with our friends and allies and work out what concerted action is necessary to convince Russia and China that the cruel and barbarous treatment of our nationals in their hands does not pay?

We have had consultations with the other Governments concerned. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman's question spoke of discriminatory treatment. We must notice that the treatment which our nationals have received has been matched by that applied to the nationals of other countries.

That is no comfort.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his hon. Friend the then Under-Secretary of State, during the passage of the Consular Relations Bill, giving a specific undertaking about the regularity of consular access which would be available in these cases? Is it right that such an undertaking should have been given if it could not be honoured?

If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the Consular Agreement with Russia, that refers to "periodic" access, but it does not state the periods.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions the Burma Government have placed on the movements of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy in Rangoon, and British consular officers in Burma; and what similar restrictions are applied to members of the Burmese Embassy in London.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions in the past year members of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy, Rangoon, have been able to make visits to other parts of Burma.

Her Majesty's Embassy and other foreign missions in Burma, are asked to give prior notice in writing of proposed journeys to points outside the Rangoon area. During the past year 35 such journeys have been made by members of the staff of Her Majesty's Embassy, Rangoon. No restrictions are placed on journeys by members of the Burmese Embassy in London.

Are the permits freely given, and why is it that no British journalist can obtain admission to Burma, which is an important country with which we have historical links?

There were no occasions in 1968 or 1969 when permission was refused for intended journeys notified by Her Majesty's Embassy in Rangoon. The general procedure for notifying journeys in advance of dates goes back to the time of the civil war, and the present procedure dates from 1959.

How many of these visits were to the Shan State and the Kachin State, and how does that compare with the position ten years ago?

I am afraid that I should need notice of the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's latest representations to the Government of South Africa arising from their study of the administration of Namibia and the implications of the South-West African Affairs Bill.

We have made no representations to the Government of South Africa on this question since the reply my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) on 14th February.—[Vol. 777, c. 408–9.]

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the South African Government have no right to introduce this Bill, and would he explain why, along with France, we abstained on the U.N. resolution last March?

We have made clear to the South African Government our views on this and previous legislation, which had something like the same effect on this territory as this Bill. Our reason for abstaining had nothing to do with the Bill as such but with procedure. I would also remind my hon. Friend that on 20th March my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Caradon made a full statement setting out our reasons for opposing the legislation and, indeed, for our action in the U.N.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say which will come first—the removal of the South Africans from South-West Africa or of the Russians from the Baltic States?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions the United Nations Committee of 24 has requested permission to visit British dependencies; on how many occasions such requests have been granted; and on how many occasions they have been refused.

There have, over the years, been numerous such requests. The only one we felt able to grant was for a special United Nations visiting mission to Aden in April, 1967.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that this reluctance has an unfortunate effect on world opinion and that, if we are as satisfied as we have the right to be in the administration of our dependencies, we might do well to invite the U.N. to visit our remaining dependencies ahead of requests of this kind?

I cannot agree. From experience, the unfortunate effects are probably in the territories themselves. We have a record second to none in decolonisation. We make full and regular reports under Article 73(e) to the U.N., and we voluntarily inform the U.N. about the progress to stable self-rule in each territory. I see no reason automatically to accept visits of this sort.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, at least in Aden, the activities of the United Nations Mission were little short of a farce?

Certainly they did not help in that situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider receiving a United Nations visiting mission in the next British territory to receive independence before independence is granted.

My right hon. Friend is always aready to consider proposals put to him, but it would be a matter for very careful judgment by us whether any such visit would prove helpful in a particular case.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the general attitude of this Committee has changed considerably over the past year and that the Governments of New Zealand and Spain have won considerable good will, not only in the Committee but in the United Nations, by inviting missions of this kind to territories before they reached independence? Will my right hon. Friend consider, in particular, the possibility of inviting a mission of this kind to St. Vincent before associated statehood is granted?

I have stated our general attitude. We review our attitude regularly to the Committee of 24. We have maintained our membership and we co-operate to the utmost with it. I have indicated in a previous Answer how fully we provide information about what we do in these dependencies. To compare our position with that of countries which have only one, or perhaps two, dependencies when we have 20 is, I think, a bit misplaced.

Will the Minister resist any temptation to invite the Committee of 24 to Gibraltar, if only in the interests of its own security.

I have said that my right hon. Friend will consider any request and decide what is best in any particular case.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that there is great advantage in securing the good will of the world, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard) said in his Question? Will he also agree that, if the U.N. mission to Aden had been treated properly, a great deal of the bloodshed and other disasters might have been avoided?

I cannot but disagree with the second part of my right hon. Friend's Question. On the first part, we shall certainly look at every application with a view to deciding whether it is necessary, useful and helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will take the appropriate steps to ensure that all war criminals in Berlin are prosecuted, regardless of the time at which the crimes occurred; and if he will make a statement.

The German authorities in Berlin have been taking appropriate steps to ensure that war criminals in Berlin are prosecuted, and we are confident that they will continue to do so.

May I interpret that remark as being a guarantee that no matter how far ahead it may be, in view of the nature of some of these crimes, the persons concerned will be sought out and, when found, prosecuted?

I am glad to say that the Federal Government and the Berlin Senate are taking steps which I hope will be effective to extend the Statute of Limitations in this regard. The extradition of a criminal of this kind depends upon the result of an application from the country concerned to the country in which the criminal is resident.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his inquiries into the condition of Mr. Gerald Brooke, and his prospects for release.

A visit to Mr. Brooke by Her Majesty's Consul in Moscow is taking place today.

I am sure that the whole House will be relieved to hear that the Consul is being granted access. Since the the Anglo-Soviet Convention requires, under Article 36, that there should be this access, and protocol is that it should be on a recurrent basis, will my hon. Friend say whether he regards this visit as the first of many on a recurrent basis which Mr. Brooke will have by right, as otherwise the Soviet Union will be in breach of the spirit if not of the letter of the Convention?

That is our view. The Convention provides for access on a recurrent basis. We have not been able to agree with the Soviet authorities an interpretation of this phrase in terms of frequency of visits. That question is still under discussion. But I agree that the spirit of the Convention is that they should be reasonably frequent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Union is not the only place where British nationals are incarcerated? Five British nationals have been incarcerated in Bari in Southern Italy for the past 16 months. Will the Foreign Secretary continue to press for their release?

Yes, Sir. I think that there is another Question about that today.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's discouraging answer to Question No. 14, will he now specify the modifications or recisions of Anglo-Russian cultural arrangements which will follow if Mr. Gerald Brooke is prosecuted a second time?

No, Sir. I have already spoken to the House about the serious consequences which would follow if that were to happen. I do not believe that it would be helpful to Mr. Brooke for me to say anything further at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for improving links between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of dependent and associated states of the Commonwealth.

We continue to maintain the closest contact with dependent territories through their Governors or Administrators, and through visits in both directions at Ministerial and official levels. Our contacts with the Associated States are maintained through the British Government Representative in Castries, St. Lucia. This arrangement has been in existence for only two years and we are naturally keeping it under review.

Will the Minister take another personal look at the relatively small requirements of personnel and assistance for which these still dependent territories are asking? Will he particularly look at the Finance Bill, which will be coming before the House, to see whether investment from this country is not further discouraged by this action?

All possibilities for assisting these smaller territories are now under deep discussion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the British subjects kept in prison after or without trial in Italy are safe and have not suffered injury in the recent gaol disturbances.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Minister take the occasion to renew representations to the Italian authorities, as today his right hon. Friend has been celebrating the twentieth anniversary of the Council of Europe and the Charter of Human Rights, and point out that it is unacceptable that a constituent of mine, and I think one of yours, Mr. Speaker, have teen 16 months awaiting trial in Southern Italy?

Consular access to these prisoners is regularly permitted. We are well aware of the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman and of other hon. Members.

Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Italian authorities the full sense of outrage at the denial of elementary and natural justice in detaining five men without trial for 16 months in a country a long way from their home? Will the hon. Gentleman also make representations about the prevarications of the Italian Government which has so far given four different times of trial? Will he also find out when the trial will take place?

There are later Questions on this subject. The Italian authorities have been made very well aware of the strong feelings held by Members of this House and by members of the public at the length of time that these prisoners have been held awaiting trial?

What action do the Government propose?

To continue to make those representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in China; and in how many of these cases has consular access been refused.

There are at present twelve British subjects detained without trial in China. Consular access has so far been refused in all cases. We will continue to make representations to the Chinese for access.

How many children are involved? When the Secretary of State speaks of making continued representations, may I ask whether this will include making it clear to the Chinese that if they persist in this inhuman conduct we must revise our attitude to their admission to the United Nations?

I think that I am right in saying that there are two children involved.

Has my right hon. Friend made it clear to the Chinese authorities that we in this House and the British people generally find their action utterly disgraceful, that it offends every tenet of decent human behaviour, and that they are tarnishing the name of the Chinese people by continuing this vulgar action?

Yes, Sir. I believe that the same sentiment has been made clear by the other countries whose nationals are similarly treated.

What ultimatum has the right hon. Gentleman given to the Chinese? Is he aware that words are not enough and that some trade sanctions or other means must be used to compel the Chinese to act in a humane way?

There have been a good many suggestions about action of that kind. I do not believe that any that have so far been suggested to me would help these British subjects.

Will my right hon. Friend inform the House whether he has any information regarding my constituent, Captain Will, who has now been held for many months? This is causing great anxiety to his family. Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has found out where in China he is and if he is being treated well?

I think that I should write to my hon. Friend giving him in detail the latest information that we have. We know that he is detained for investigation into alleged violation of Chinese laws. I will try to keep my hon. Friend informed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the United States Government in the light of their decision to prevent investment income reaching the residents of Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Security Council Resolution No. 253 of 1968, calling for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against Rhodesia, requires members of the United Nations to prevent all but a very restricted range of payments and remittances to that country.

Is it not a fact that payments from Rhodesia to America having been stopped and payments from America to Rhodesia, the net result is that Rhodesia has profited by a very large sum of money? Even within the general context of sanctions, is not this a totally idiotic result?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has the facts correctly, and even if he had that would not be a reason for allowing the payments he has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of recent condemnations of Great Britain by the United Nations Committee of 24, whether it is his policy to continue British membership of that Committee.

Yes, Sir. Although we continue to meet criticism in the Committee, we believe that we should continue to explain our policies there.

I accept that there needs to be a balance between the advantages of remaining and the advantages of going, but does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there are at least two arguments in favour of the "empty chair"? The first is that nothing is to be gained by simply providing an Aunt Sally, and the second is that the staff of our Mission in New York are already over-extended and could do much better work than going to this rather biased Committee.

I wholly disagree. We are not only the butt of criticism in the Committee but also a very effective member, putting forward a constructive policy of de-colonisation. The Committee is now examining the future of small States and micro-States in which we are prominently involved and to which we have a very important contribution to make.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we should be just as much of an Aunt Sally whether we were members of the Committee or not? Given that we are likely to be the subject of attacks anyway, is it not better for us to be there in order to put our point of view and defend the actions of the British Government?

I entirely agree.

Can the Minister of State tell us whether all the member nations of the Committee are up to date with their subscriptions?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conclusions he has now reached about the resolution of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe on the subject of the suspension of Greece from that Organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that at the forthcoming meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe he will support the Assembly's recommendation that Greece should be suspended from membership of the Council in view of the undemocratic nature of the Greek régime.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths) on 28th April.—[Vol. 782, c. 156.]

Is it not time to tell the House that since Greece has broken all the rules of the Council of Europe we Mould support her suspension from that Council? Does my right hon. Friend realise that if we do not support Greece's suspension it will be regarded as shameful and as a blow to every lover of freedom?

As my hon. Friend is aware, the recommendation of the Consultative Assembly is to invite the Council of Ministers, having regard to the previous expression of opinion by the Assembly—with which I think everyone will sympathise—to take appropriate action within a specified period. The Council of Ministers is now meeting and has to decide what is appropriate action and what is meant by "specified period". I do not believe that it would be right for me to state now, before the Council of Ministers deals with this matter, what the decision ought to be.

Will my right hon. Friend take a much more robust attitude against what is now known to everyone as a barbarous military dictatorship? Is he aware that we on this side are sick and tired of the Foreign Office seeking to please, or giving the appearance of pleasing, hon. Members opposite rather than the Government's own supporters?

My hon. Friend really has got this wrong. In the first place, the Government have made very clear their detestation of undemocratic and unconstitutional rule anywhere. We have left the Greek Government in no doubt about this matter. We now face the particular problem of what action it is right for the Council of Ministers of the Council of Europe to take at this meeting. These are matters on which I must endeavour to act together with other members of the Council of Europe in the hope of reaching a unanimous decision.

Is it not a fact that the Committee on Human Rights set up by the Council of Europe has not yet reported and that this is one factor which the Council of Ministers should have before it? Is it not also a fact that Turkey, when in a somewhat similar situation, was given a long time, was not removed from the Council of Europe and returned to democratic processes?

The fact that the Commission on Human Rights has still to report is a relevant factor, and this I believe is the view of many nations which are members of the Council of Europe.

Is my right hon Friend aware that the report that Sweden is wavering on this question, which has been promulgated by a Foreign Office spokesman, is not true? Is he further aware that we on these benches are united in our adamant belief that it would be unforgivable if Britain showed less backbone than other nations in disembarrassing democratic organisations of régimes such as the one in Athens?

I have been in touch with other member nations of the Council of Europe, and I assure my hon Friend that any versions that suggest that we have, as he puts it, any less backbone than the great majority of the members are without foundation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Britain is negotiating to supply a nuclear reactor to Greece? Secondly, with Greece being a fully paid up member of N.A.T.O., are we negotiating the supply of frigates to her?

The supply of the nuclear reactor is public knowledge already. No export licences have been applied for or granted in respect of frigates. But neither of these matters is relevant to the decision in the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is a body distinct from N.A.T.O. It is in no sense a military grouping. That is why a decision there would not necessarily be the same thing as a decision in N.A.T.O. That decision ought to take place in consultation in the meeting of the Council of Ministers which has still to be held and where the representative of the Greek Government will be free to make what statement he thinks right. I want to repeat something for the benefit of my hon. Friends. The suggestion that the Government have shown, as has been implied, any less resolution in trying to assert democratic principles is totally without foundation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what he meant by his choice of words? He referred to "detestation". Is it not the case that the Government are at present negotiating a form of barter whereby this country takes £40 million-worth of Greek tobacco which she does not want in exchange for the supply of a nuclear power station? How does he reconcile that with his choice of the word "detestation"?

The hon. Gentleman must have been in the House for a long time without listening to anything if he has not grasped by now that commercial transactions are often carried out between Governments which strongly disapprove of each other's political systems. [Interruption.] I refer, of course, to commercial transactions that are not of a military nature, as this one is not. It does not apply where there is an express resolution of the Security Council, to which the Conservative Government assented, as there is in the case of arms for South Africa.

Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Does not my right hon. Friend feel that in the circumstances it is somewhat odd that we should be showing such a marked preference for Greek tobacco as against Rhodesian tobacco, particularly when the payment is to be in nuclear capacity?

rose—

On a point of order.

Order. The Secretary of State must be allowed to answer before the right hon. member for Stafford and Stone puts his point of order.

When my hon. Friend tries to equate Greece with Rhodesia he forgets two things: first, that there are some very important United Nations decisions about Rhodesia and, secondly, that it is in rebellion against the Crown.

Owing to the confusion of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Notice should be given in the conventional way.

Further to that point of order. May I raise the matter on the Adjournment owing to the confusion of the right hon. Member?

That would be unique in Parliamentary procedure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his meeting on 16th April, 1969, with the Greek Foreign Minister.

No, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether he has received any assurances from Mr. Pipinelis about the return to democratic rule and whether anything was said to him which would lend credibility to those assurances, since other words spoken by Greek leaders, especially Mr. Papadopoulos, bore no shred of truth or credibility in them?

No, Sir. These discussions were confidential.

I accept that much of what takes place in these discussions must remain confidential, but can my right hon. Friend at least assure the House that he told the Greek Foreign Minister of the abhorrence with which the Greek régime is viewed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House? Furthermore, did my right hon. Friend discuss the question of arms supplies?

I repeat: the discussions were confidential. As I have already said, the Greek Government are well aware of our views of the situation in Greece.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Labour Organisation decided to take Greece back only 14 days ago?

That is a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Hong Kong Government with their plans for the construction of a tunnel between Hong Kong and the mainland.

The Hong Kong Government are prospective shareholders in a limited company known as the Cross Harbour Tunnel Company to which they have awarded a franchise for the construction of a tunnel between Hong Kong Island and the mainland. That company, having recently reached agreement in principle with Lloyds Bank on the provision of loan finance, is now proceeding to detailed negotiations with a consortium led by Costain Civil Engineering Limited and hope that the contract will be signed this month.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Export Credits Guarantee Department has agreed to underwrite this project? Does he realise that the people of Hong Kong are eagerly waiting for some practical sign like this of the Government's faith in the political future of the Colony?

It would be better if the hon. Member were to put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

He will not accept it.

In that case I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said and convey it with due force to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to public funds pf the translation and publication of regulations issued by the Commission of the European Economic Community in Brussels; and how long this service will be continued.

The cost to public funds of translating and reproducing regulations and other documents issued by the European Economic Communities is estimated at £32,000 in 1969. The service will continue indefinitely.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is now unnecessary expenditure? Does not he think that he should collaborate with some of his right hon. Friends—especially the Minister for Social Security and other Ministers in his Department—to see if this could make a contribution towards preventing other harsh measures which may be envisaged?

I cannot agree that this is an unnecessary service. The Community—whatever our relationship to it—is one of our major trading partners and we must be fully cognizant with the legislation of the Community. Moreover, as an applicant for membership it is particularly essential that we should keep abreast of all developments.

Is not this £32,000 an extremely cheap way of informing British businessmen of the sort of situation that they may face when trading in the Community?

We have taken care to see that it is run with maximum efficiency at the lowest cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the work of the United Nations Disarmament Committee.

The Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee is considering further arms control measures in the nuclear and non-nuclear fields, to follow up the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Particular attention is being paid to the questions of a comprehensive nuclear test ban, arms control on the seabed, and a ban on biological methods of warfare. Further details were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in his speech to the Committee on 17th April, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. Does he realise that the work referred to in the Question is symbolic of the best in our modern civilisation, and will he do his part in the Government to promote it?

Yes. It is true that a large proportion of the initiatives now being taken on disarmament are being taken by the British Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to sign the agreement with Yugoslavia providing for the mutual abolition of visas.