asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the four-Power conference on the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the latest developments in the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of the four-Power talks on the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in recent discussions with the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France regarding a settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute.

I have nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), on 16th June.—[Vol. 784, c. 28–34.]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a state of war again exists in the Middle East? In view of that, will he endeavour to inject a sense of urgency into these rather leisurely talks? Does he further agree that there is little prospect of stability while one member State of the United Nations continues to occupy the territories of three other member States?

We are well aware of the urgency of this. However, the second part of my hon. Friend's question, although concentrating on one real aspect of the problem, has not put it in proportion with all the other matters which have to be considered.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread respect both in this country and abroad for the objectivity of Her Majesty's Government's policy on that issue? Is he further aware of the view frequently repeated that a solution can be found only if it enjoys the support of all the parties to the dispute?

I firmly believe that to be so, and Her Majesty's Government were able to be helpful in the earlier discussions. I hope that the opportunity will arise again.

As reports from Cairo suggest that the Egyptian-Soviet stand would make it difficult to make progress in the four-Power talks, what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking to stimulate direct talks between Israel and her Arab neighbours?

I have said in earlier debates that the failure to agree to direct talks was very difficult for people in this country to understand. I think that we have to accept that it is not easy—indeed perhaps it is impossible—to get them at present, and we must try to make progress through the four-Power talks.

Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say anything about the recent visit of Mr. Gromyko to Egypt?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the release of the British journalist Anthony Grey and other British subjects illegally detained by the Chinese Government; and if he will make a statement.

The Chinese have linked the imprisonment of certain news workers in Hong Kong with the detention of Mr. Grey in Peking. Under normal circumstances all the news workers in question will be reased with full remission by early October.

Has my right hon. Friend made clear to the Chinese Government the utter loathing and contempt which is felt not only by Members of this House and British journalists but by the British people with regard to Mr. Anthony Grey and other people illegally detained by the Chinese Communist Government? Can he say whether there has been an improvement in the transmission of letters and other communications between Mr. Grey and his relatives and journalists interested in his case and, indeed, to other people held by the Chinese authorities?

On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, we have made the most frequent representations both in Peking and here. We have made it very clear what the opinion of people in this country and of Her Majesty's Government is on this matter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made it clear to both Peking and Moscow that if they continue this kind of behaviour all that they will do is put off British industrialists visiting their countries, bearing in mind that already we have an adverse balance with both of them?

This aspect of the matter has been made clear to both countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are now detained without trial in Communist China; how many of these have been denied access to British representatives; and what action he is now taking in respect of these people.

There are 12 British subjects detained without trial in China. I will, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

But has the right hon. Gentleman impressed on the Chinese that this conduct is completely outside ordinary civilised behaviour, and that they and their representatives can hardly expect to be treated as other than barbarians if they continue to behave like this?

We have made this very clear to the Chinese, and so have the Governments of other countries whose nationals are similarly treated.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's view would be more welcome if they would show similar concern for the hundreds of black people detained without trial by the Smith régime, and if they used similar terms about the Smith régime as they do about the Chinese Government?

I hope that everyone in the House detests the arbitrary use of power and the denial of human rights in all parts of the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current state of negotiations designed to secure the release of the United Kingdom citizens illegally imprisoned in foreign countries; and if he will make a statement.

While we do not necessarily approve of the legal systems and judicial processes of all other countries, so far as I am aware, no British subjects are imprisoned in foreign countries except in accordance with the provisions of local law. We must accept that British nationals are subject to the laws and legal proceedings operative in countries in which they may be at any given time.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether, when a British subject is arrested or detained overseas, there is immediate investigation by his Department and will he state what sort of help a British subject is offered before and after any arrest?

British subjects who are either prisoners awaiting trial or undergoing sentences of imprisonment receive regular visits from our consular officers who provide them with all possible assistance and see that they have legal advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his Department will arrange to send an observer to attend some of the trials of political prisoners taking place in Greece.

Although it is not our normal practice to appoint official observers to trials of this kind, Her Majesty's Embassy in Athens keeps a close watch on the trials in Greece and from time to time is represented at them.

That is a very encouraging reply.

As my hon. Friend knows, the Greek Government have been made aware of the strong feelings in this country about political prisoners and their treatment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give a defence guarantee against external aggression to the colony of British Honduras when she achieves independence.

No, Sir. The defence of British Honduras after independence is one of the many problems which will have to be discussed with the British Hondurans and is a matter which will no doubt be raised at any conference about independence. In these circumstances it is premature to talk about assurances.

In view of the not unjustied historical fears of British Honduras about her territorial integrity, will the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not unreasonable that she should ask for, and that we should give, some defence guarantee when she assumes the responsibilities of independence? Surely, if we can invade Anguilla we can defend British Honduras?

I do not want to go into the question of Anguilla, because there are other Questions about it on the Order Paper. We are fully aware of the anxieties of the people of British Honduras, and we share with them the hopes that a means of settling the British Honduras-Guatemala dispute can be found, so that British Honduras can proceed to independence on the best possible terms with her neighbour.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the genuine anxiety that exists in the colony about the future? Surely, the best service that Her Majesty's Government can provide is to give a firm assurance that, before there is any question of independence, there will be a general election at which the real desires of the people can be ascertained?

Yes, I am aware of that.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about a long-term solution of the Anguilla problem.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary's reply of 16th June to the hon. Members for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), to which I have nothing to add.—[Vol. 785, c 12–13.]

Will the Foreign Sectary clarify the statement made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State when he arrived in Anguilla, that the Anguillans need not be administered by an Administration that they do not want? Does it or does it not mean that the Anguillans, if they do not wish to be administered from St. Kitts, will not be?

I repeat the assurance which I gave in the House. It is no part of our policy that the people of Anguilla should be under a régime that they do not want. That was repeating and taking up what my hon. Friend had previously said.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Caribbean Commission, which is to study the problem, is likely to be appointed and when he will be in a position to announce the name of the chairman and the Commission's terms of reference?

I cannot give a date at present, but I hope that there will not be very much delay.

Indeed, there was talk, when Mr. Bradshaw was over here, of the Caribbean Commission. As British troops are still in occupation in Anguilla, is there not an element of urgency in this situation? Should not the Caribbean Commission have already been set up?

No, I do not think so. This matter needs consideration and requires agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Associated State. But I will see that there is no unnecessary delay about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the number of visits paid by the Governor of St. Barthelemy to Anguilla during the past 18 months; and what were the reasons for such visits.

None, Sir. There is no Governor of Saint Barthelemy. The hon. Gentleman may have in mind Monsieur de Heinem, who is a leading citizen of Saint Barthelemy and who has, I understand, made a number of visits on private business to Anguilla in recent years.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the correction. Can he say for what reason the recent visits were made by this gentleman to Anguilla, in his own private aeroplane? Is it not a fact that many people think that he is behind the recent troubles and unrest? What investigation is the right hon. Gentleman making into this?

In the first place, these were private visits by a private individual, about private business. I know of no evidence to support the suggestion that the hon. Member makes, and I do not think that there were any visits in this calendar year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a new comprehensive study on the economic effects of joining the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies are now being made in his Department of the economic costs of joining the Common Market.

We are certainly keeping the possibility of studies under review. But in present circumstances as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 10th June, there is no reason to change the general estimates given to the House during the Common Market debate two years ago.—[Vol. 784, c. 1225.]

But does not the Foreign Secretary recall that very few estimates were given to this House and that the information simply is not being disclosed to this country? Is it not very curious for the Government to try to join the European Economic Community, not knowing what the economic effects will be?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman to look again at what was said by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He pointed out that it would simply be doing a disservice to the House to try to give a detailed calculation of the effects of all the factors that would be operating on the balance of payments in the first few years afer our entry. That was why I used the phrase "general estimates". I do not think that I could go further than that at present.

Has my right hon. Friend not yet learned the lesson of trying to push unacceptable legislation that the country does not want? Is he aware that since the Prime Minister made his statement two years ago, devaluation has taken place and that, therefore, the whole of the economic estimates made two years ago are now out of gear? Does he not think that, instead of asking the British people to buy a pig in a poke, we should be given all the information so that we can make up our minds?

The decision to make an application to join the Common Market received overwhelming support from the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—and I believe that it still has that support.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, since the debate two years ago, we have witnessed the complete failure of the Common Market's agricultural policy? Surely it is absolutely right that the House should have a current economic assessment of that factor alone.

Yes. But the point that I am making, as was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, is that we cannot make detailed estimates of matters of this kind.

Why not?

While it may be necessary to learn from previous lessons and to talk about buying a pig in a poke, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, at any future study, he might also take account of the latest information on the technological advantages of going into the Market, which would make the complete case, even to the most discerning critic?

I think that that is a matter which has to be brought into the argument.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to secure the withdrawal by the Spanish Government of the restrictions placed by them on normal travel to and from Gibraltar.

The Spanish Government are aware of our view that the closure of the land frontier between Gibraltar and Spain is entirely unjustified. We have also made clear our determination and ability to sustain Gibraltar. If the Spanish Government wish to create the right atmosphere for progress towards a settlement, they must as a first step stop harassing the Gibraltarians.

While fully endorsing what the Foreign Secretary has just said, may I ask whether the time has now come to apply some pressure to Spain? Has the right hon. Gentleman, in this context, considered the withdrawal of landing rights for Spanish civil aircraft at Heathrow, which would seem appropriate in itself and particularly because, in the event of, retaliation, it would damage their tourist industry?

The House will remember that I made it clear that we would have to be satisfied that any retaliatory measures were likely to be of help to the Gibraltarians and were not of a kind which might do more damage to this country and to Gibraltar than to Spain. We have examined a number of possibilities. We are examining others, and I will include the one mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman.

"If I may say so, on this point I fully understand the view taken in the House of Commons by the Foreign Secretary."

Would it be feasible to defray the costs of the economic burden placed on Gibraltar by a small levy on British tourists going to Spain and a similar one for the costs of Rhodesian sanctions on tourists going to South Africa?

These are attractive ideas, but I doubt very much whether it will be possible to make them practicable.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Government will sustain the people of Gibraltar in this difficulty, and with that the whole House is in agreement, but will he confirm that the extraordinary expenditure arising in Gibraltar as a result of the Spanish blockade is being covered by Her Majesty's Government?

Before giving an absolute 100 per cent. answer to that I should like to look more closely into it. We are giving very considerable help to Gibraltar, and we shall do our best to see that they can maintain their position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has to strengthen military and economic co-operation with Greece within the framework of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

None, Sir. But in the communiqué issued after their meeting last month the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's Defence Ministers referred to plans for the improvement of local forces in the Mediterranean area. These plans, which are confidential, are a matter for the collective decision of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation as a whole.

In view of the widespread knowledge that the Greeks are seeking suppliers of frigates for N.A.T.O. use, does not the right hon. Gentleman owe it to the House of Commons to indicate whether or not this is business which the Government would welcome?

We have not received a request for an export licence for the sale of frigates or any major item of military equipment to Greece. As my right hon. Friend said last week, we consider such requests in the N.A.T.O. context, but, as a matter of fact, since the coup d'état of 1967 we have made no significant supplies of arms to Greece.

In view of the fact that the requirement of N.A.T.O. is to protect freedom and democracy, would not my right hon. Friend agree that this could hardly be the policy pursued by the present Greek Government, and would not he also agree that the whole matter of Greece's future in N.A.T.O. must be looked at in the same way as it will be in relation to the Council of Europe following the Report of the Commission of Human Rights?

I think that these are two quite distinct questions, and as far as I know no member country of N.A.T.O. has suggested that Greece should be expelled from N.A.T.O.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman further on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen). In view of the great importance of Greece to N.A.T.O., is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to look favourably on any request that the Government may make for arms for their country?

I think that one has to examine carefully any requests when they are received, but, as I have said, we have had no requests for an export licence for any of these items.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set a time limit to the continued supply of British arms to Nigeria in view of the protraction of the war with Biafra.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now impose a time limit on the supply of arms by the United Kingdom to the Federal Government of Nigeria.

I do not believe that setting a time limit on our continued supply of arms to the Federal Government would help to bring a settlement nearer.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that following the shooting down of a Red Cross plane in daylight and the harassing of Dr. Lindt, all relief flights into Biafra have stopped? Will he reaffirm the pledge given a year ago by the Foreign Secretary that if an attempt is made to starve the Biafrans into submission the British policy of underwriting Nigeria's policy by supplying arms will be changed?

There is another Question on the Order Paper on this subject. Efforts have been made for many months to open up land corridors. There is hope that something might happen in this respect. The International Red Cross has been pressing for daylight flights, the Federal Government have supported them in principle, but the person who has not has been the representative in the secessionist area.

I do not think the House has really been entirely convinced in previous debates that arms to Nigeria could not be policed in the context of an international agreement. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary is pursuing the possibility of getting the four Powers or many Powers, to agree to some limitation?

There have been discussions. The position at the moment is that the French deny that they are supplying arms. The Russians have said that they will continue to supply arms. The Portuguese are providing transit and other facilities, and intend to continue to do so. The problem in terms of getting an international arms embargo is that unless it is policed in the country, and unless it is accepted on both sides, it is meaningless. We require the approval of both sides in the conflict if we are to get any effective arms embargo. We have maintained that this can happen only at the same time as there is a cease-fire which also is policed. The prerequisite for all this is that both sides are willing to sit down and talk. There is no lack of outside mediators. There is an absence of a will to mediate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following the withdrawal by the Lagos Government of its offer to Biafra of negotiations without conditions, if he will now end the supply of arms from Great Britain and propose through the United Nations that France, Russia and Portugal should stop arms from going to either side.

No, Sir. My hon. Friend is mistaken in his belief that the Federal Nigerian Government have withdrawn their offer of negotiations without preconditions for an end to the conflict in Nigeria. The Federal Government fully maintain their readiness to negotiate a peaceful settlement as explained by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 2nd April.—[Vol. 781, c. 485–6.]

But why do not the Government even attempt to obtain a joint ban on arms, particularly since Biafra's only inlet point, Uli, could easily be policed on the spot, a proceeding to which she has agreed?

I agree that if we can get agreement by both sides for policing on the spot we can move, but so far that has not been possible.

Surely the Foreign Secretary should look again at the Resolution of the Assembly of the Council of Europe which, on 15th May, asked that there should be a total arms embargo. This was carried with no opposition. It is clear that Colonel Ojukwu would agree to an arms embargo, and would agree to police it and to reveal those black market sources common to both sides.

I have read the Resolution and I sympathise very much with it—

Do something about it.

The point is, as I have said, that an international arms embargo can be effective only if accepted by both sides. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) has had the advantage, which many hon. Members have not, of having been and spoken to Colonel Ojukwu. I should still be interested in something which I have never yet heard—an authoritative public statement from Colonel Ojukwu that he would accept and police an international arms embargo and a cease-fire, and that he would be willing to sit down and discuss these matters with the other side.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the political differences which make it inappropriate for him to undertake an initiatve to achieve a nuclear-free zone in Europe.

As I told my hon. Friend on 25th April, progress on European security measures cannot be disassociated from progress in resolving the political problems of the Continent. The continuing division of Germany lies at the heart of these problems. We continue to seek a more secure Europe, but account must be taken of the close links between the question of European security and the German problem.—[Vol. 782, c. 141.]

But is not the position that the development of gas centrifuge means that there is grave danger, while Germany remains divided, of both sides becoming possessed of a nuclear capability, and if this is allowed to happen will not the possibility of getting a nuclear-free zone recede even further? Is not the matter urgent, and will my right hon. Friend act?

I think that my hon. Friend is completely mistaken in thinking that there is a connection between the gas centrifuge arrangements that are being negotiated and nuclear weapons. The former are wholly for the civil use of nuclear energy, and stringent precautions will be taken, safeguards and so on applied, to ensure that in the case of the non-nuclear members it will be used only for civil purposes. I do not see any connection in this, and I advise my hon. Friend that to take such an initiative, which is not likely to succeed in present circumstances, would not be helpful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following the Report of the Duncan Committee, he will now grant terms of retirement and pension to members of the Diplomatic Service comparable to those of the Armed Forces.

Pensions for members of the Diplomatic Service are governed by the Superannuation Act, 1965.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that my proposal would improve cross-fertilisation with those concerned in the export industry, and might be helpful both to the Diplomatic Service and to our export industry?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman's Question was concerned with terms of retirement, but certainly any suggestions made by the Duncan Committee about improvements in our export services will be most carefully considered.

Is not the position that because of the post-war recruiting policy, for understandable reasons, the Diplomatic Service is top-heavy in the senior posts and promotion is a problem, and that something will have to be done?

It is the structural difficulties of the Service which have led to the difficult decision to ask 30 senior officers to retire earlier than they would otherwise have done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the British subjects, the crew of m.v. "Conqueror", awaiting trial in Bari since January 1968.

The local Italian judicial authorities have now informed our Consul at Bari that the trial of these British subjects will begin in Trani on 10th July.

Will the hon. Gentleman express to the officials concerned in the Foreign Office and in Rome and Bari my thanks on behalf of my constituents and, I believe, of yours, Mr. Speaker, at having achieved this result after an unwarrantable delay of a year and a half?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to help the Federal Government of Nigeria to end the civil strife in the former Eastern Region; and what plans he has for further aid to the distressed war areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the changed situation in Biafra, he will now make a fresh initiative to end the war.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 16th June. —[Vol. 785, c. 2.] I described our current plans for relief aid in the debate on 13th March.—[Vol. 779, c. 1579–81.]

Considering the large number of unnecessarily fatal casualties to Nigerian forces in the field, has any request yet come from the Nigerian Government for the supply of field hospitals or any medical aid from this country?

No request has come.

Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence in Lagos to prevent a repetition of the shooting-down of a Red Cross plane in daylight and ask Lagos to accept the offer by Biafra to open Uli airport to daylight flights for food and relief purposes?

On the first part, we regret, of course, as anyone would, the tragic events in the shooting-down of this Red Cross plane. I understand that the Federal Government themselves have said that it was a disaster, that this was a dreadful mistake. I want to make it absolutely clear about relief routes that this matter has been the plaything of both sides in the argument over many months and it is very hard to differentiate between a propaganda initiative and a genuine desire. So far as I know, the present position is that the so-called Biafran authorities have offered day and night flights, coupled with the construction of another airfield, and have also accepted in principle the use of a river scheme for getting supplies out. The Federal authorities have started daylight flights and have now given their support to the river route. This last one is under way, we hope, at this very moment, and this is probably the way out of the present dilemma.

How will all this end? Since the "quick kill" is becoming slower and slower, how do the Government think that the war will be brought to an end? Will they explain what is in their mind?

The Government have never subscribed to the theory of a quick kill. The war will come to an end when both sides agree to sit down to discuss their differences and come up with a formula acceptable to both sides. The Federal Government have insisted on one Nigeria and adequate safeguards for the safety of the Ibos. At this moment, the Biafran side is still insisting on a separate entity.

Is it not a fact that Colonel Ojukwu recently offered again discussions without any conditions? Since that is so, will the Government now try at last the only way of bringing this war to an end—namely, an organised attempt through the United Nations to get the machinery of all the Governments to stop both Government and private marketeering supplies of arms to both sides?

I accept and fully understand my right hon. Friend's humanitarian motives. I would point out, however, that in the last round of discussions of the O.A.U. at Monrovia the Nigerian side accepted discussions without preconditions. The so-called Biafran side wanted a cease-fire first and then discussions—in other words, the cease-fire was a pre-condition, and it was on these grounds that the talks broke down.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest representations he has made on behalf of Mrs. Scharegin, a United Kingdom citizen, to the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding the detention of her husband Mr. Nikolai Scharegin.

Since October, 1968, Her Majesty's Consul in Moscow has made repeated inquiries on behalf of Mrs. Scharegin. The Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs have invariably replied that they are still conducting their investigations and that no decision regarding Mr. Scharegin has yet been taken. On 13th June, the Consul was informed that investigations would be completed "in the near future".

In view of the fact that Mr. Scharegin has lived in Britain for 20 years and was representing a British firm when he was detained last September, could my hon. Friend consider including his case in any discussions which he may be having with the Russians about the possible return of Mr. Gerald Brooke?

There is a separate Question on the Order Paper about Mr. Brooke. Mr. Scharegin is a Soviet national, although he has lived here since the end of the war. He went to Moscow on a Home Office travel document which was clearly marked that it was not valid for the Soviet Union. He went there at his own risk.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Minister in his Department is responsible for promoting good relations with other Commonwealth countries.

Since the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices, all Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are responsible for promoting good relations with other Commonwealth countries.

I am delighted to have that reply. Are the Ministers merely taking a passive rôle, or are they seeking to take some initiative to promote and extend the very important good relations which we have with other Commonwealth countries?

We regard it as a positive duty on all of us to promote good relations with Commonwealth countries.

If there is any difficulty in selecting a Minister for this purpose, could we not release Lord Chalfont from his European duties and ask him to undertake this task, in which he might be a little more successful than he has been in the past?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend has listened to my answer. I said that there is no difficulty in securing a Minister for this purpose. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is, therefore, on those and other grounds unnecessary and undesirable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much public money was expended in celebrating Europe Day recently; and how much was expended on celebrating Commonwealth Day on 24th May.

The cost to public funds of support for Europe Day was £1,660 15s. The estimated cost of our support for Commonwealth Day, which, in fact, was on 14th June, is £2,500.

I am grateful for that information. Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that many hon. Members on both sides consider that our existing Commonwealth links are of far more value to us and to the country than any future nebulous links with Europe?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to express a view in response to a question of that sort. In supporting both these days, Her Majesty's Government are only trying to help them to be celebrated appropriately, because we are in Europe and, of course, also interested in the Commonwealth.

Welcome as this expenditure on the celebration of Europe Day was, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people thought, considering that it was the 20th anniversary, that it was not nearly enough?

I ought to say that this was the celebration for Europe Day. The cost of the Council of Europe celebrations for the 20th anniversary of the Council of Europe was an additional cost, of approximately £4,800.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in his negotiations with the authorities in Egypt for the release of the British ships at present detained in the Suez Canal; and when he expects the Canal will be open to international shipping.

As regards the ships, we continue to press for a survey of the southern exit.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Canal will ever again be open to shipping? Might it not be better in the long run to abandon the four British ships in this dead canal?

We ought to continue our attempts to get these ships out. It will be apparent to everyone that if a settlement in the Middle East dispute is not reached, or is long delayed, and the Canal remains blocked, its value, inevitably, in world commerce, will diminish. This will be an injury to a good many countries.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of the ships in the Bitter Lakes have been endangered by cross-shelling?

I do not believe that there has been any serious danger, either to the ships or, I am glad to say, to the people on them.

Am I right in thinking that both Egypt and Israel have agreed in principle to the survey mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but that this is prevented only by military activities across the Canal?

Yes, that is so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are now being made to improve communications between the mainland and the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

The desirability of improving communications between the Falkland Islands and the mainland has been an important consideration in the discussions we have had with the Argentine authorities.

Is it not a fact that these islands badly need an external air service? Is it not also true that the Argentinians are only interested in talking about questions of sovereignty? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the islands are becoming increasingly anxious about these long-drawn-out discussions?

I am very willing to admit that these are difficult negotiations. Because of the importance of improved communications, for the reason given by the hon. Member, we think it right to persist with them. For example, one matter that we have taken up very recently, again, has been the question of delays in the postal services.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that sovereignty is still on the agenda of the talks with the Argentine and, if so, how much longer must this unfruitful discussion of the undiscussable go on?

As has been made clear on many occasions, there has been no change in the Government's policy, which is that the question of seccesion of sovereignty to the Argentine can only arise if two conditions are satisfied—first, there must be a permanently satisfactory relationship between the islands and the Argentine and, secondly, the islanders must regard it as satisfactory, and it must accord with their wishes. That is the situation and that is how it stands.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the position regarding Rhodesia in the light of the result of the referendum conducted among some Rhodesians.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's future policy in relation to Southern Rhodesia.

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

As the House knows a referendum was held in Rhodesia on 20th June. The whole House will join with me in deploring the result. The constitutional proposals for which this minority electorate has voted could never form the basis of an honourable settlement with this country.

Apart from harming British trade and influence and African livelihood, what can sanctions now achieve? Is not the time coming to recognise the fact of Rhodesian independence? Did not an earlier Administration, in the end, have to recognise the American U.D.I., slavery and all?

The American Declaration of Independence was a declaration for liberty. The Rhodesian declaration of independence is a declaration against that.

Can my right hon. Friend say something about the position of the two Missions in the respective countries, and, since it is now the only alternative to prolonged periods of bloodshed, would he say what new initiatives Britain is to take in the United Nations for policing and making sanctions more effective?

We are doing our best to make sanctions effective. I do not believe that further resolutions at the United Nations are required. A stricter observance of United Nations policy is required by some countries. We are doing our best to secure this. As to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, I would ask him to await my statement tomorrow.

While deploring the way in which things have developed in Rhodesia—and the fault is not all on one side—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government still hope that sanctions will bring about a change of régime in Rhodesia?

It is necessary to pursue the policy of sanctions. When the right hon. Gentleman uses this rather dodging phrase

"the fault is not all on one side"

rose—

Order. Mr. Bottomley.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that Parliament as a whole has a continuing responsibility to the Governor, whose services to Rhodesia and the Commonwealth we all so admire, and to those Rhodesians who voted for British standards of liberty and justice? Has my right hon. Friend considered the recent broadcast by Rear-Admiral Sir Anthony Buzzard, ex-chief of the Naval Intelligence Staff, who says that we should continue to apply sanctions vigorously and that force ought not ultimately to be ruled out as a means of ending this rebellion?

I was aware of that broadcast. For the reasons I have given, I agree that it is right to continue sanctions. I must join with my right hon. Friend, as, I think, the whole House will, in expressing appreciation of the stand taken by the Governor throughout this long period. As for the rest, I must again ask the House to await my statement.

I regret the result of the referendum, but would not the Foreign Secretary agree that in the past sanctions have borne most hard on the native population, and are likely to do so again in the future?

The opportunities for the native population in Rhodesia of expressing their opinions are, unfortunately, limited, but we have no reason whatever to believe that they, of all people, would wish the policy of sanctions to be changed.

In view of the inadequate Press reports about the facts, can my right hon. Friend give prominence to one specific fact, which is that out of 90,000 electors who voted for Mr. Smith's constitution, only 6,000 coloured people were allowed to vote, although there are nearly 4 million Africans in Rhodesia?

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend, because, although that fact is very well known to all of us here and, indeed, to many other people, it is a fact that cannot be too often stated that the very nature of the electorate makes this referendum contemptible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek an early opportunity of visiting Rhodesia.

No, Sir.

When was the right hon. Gentleman last there? If the right hon. Gentleman had known Rhodesia better, would he not have understood that to intervene in the referendum by the public statement he made could only have added to Mr. Smith's majority?

No, Sir. I did not make that statement without careful consideration and consultation. I am certain that the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Does not my right hon. Friend find it curious that those people who are so critical and hostile to immigrants in this country are so "pro" and sympathetic to white immigrants in Rhodesia? Will my right hon. Friend take my assurance that on this side he has our complete support for his efforts to isolate the Smith régime; and that we hope that he will also consider a communications sanction on Rhodesia, and any other sanction, in order to break contact completely with that régime?

On the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I think that she will agree that this is not a simple and straightforward issue, and that there are arguments both ways about a communications sanction. As to the first part of her question, it is true, I think, that some people do take a rather inconsistent attitude about the right of coloured people to live here and the right of white people to live in Rhodesia. I believe that the moral of this is that in many parts of the world civilised men have to recognise the necessity of creating multi-racial societies based on equal rights.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) to insinuate that I am hostile to any section of Her Majesty's subjects in this country, whether immigrant or native?

The hon. Gentleman must accept political criticism.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider increasing the current contribution of £30,000 made by the British Government under the Anglo-German youth exchange programme, with a view to marking the importance of this programme in the current European situation.

I should like to see the level of support from our side increased, provided that comparative support for exchanges with other western European countries could also be provided. But the degree to which H.M.G. can assist programmes of this kind is governed by the present financial circumstances.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will appreciate that this is a modest scheme which has an enormous pay off in good will. Would he not consider setting up a secretariat which would encourage voluntary and welfare societies to make a contribution, if the Government cannot?

We are in touch with many of the voluntary bodies concerned; and this is one of the issues being considered.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a long accepted practice of the House for Ministers not to refer to Her Majesty's Government as H.M.G.?

I have not noticed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the growing competition between China and Russia in providing equipment and arms to Syria and Egypt, respectively, if he will propose a further international initiative to restrict arms supplies to the Middle East.

As I made clear to the House on 17th June, we would certainly like to see an all-round stoppage, or at least a limitation on arms supplies to the Middle East.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that in view of our own ambiguous policy towards Israel on shipment of tanks, we have a special responsibility to ensure that we search out ways to prevent the Russians continuing to put a great amount of equipment into the area—and, indeed, the Chinese in the future?

Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend may remember that immediately after the war in 1967 we endeavoured to set an example of unilateral abstention from supplying, but I must make it clear that if the result were to put one country in the Middle East at serious disadvantage, this would be a very dangerous policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the imprisonment by the Soviet authorities of Mr. Brooke.

The case of Mr. Brooke was discussed further with the Soviet Ambassador on 30th May.

While we all hope that Mr. Brooke will soon be released, does the Foreign Secretary recognise that exchanging Mr. Brooke for professional Soviet spies would put innocent British travellers behind the Iron Curtain at risk in the future? Is there no external pressure we are prepared to apply to the Soviet Union in an attempt to protect Mr. Brooke?

I am aware of the consideration which the hon. Gentleman advances, and all the other considerations one must bear in mind. At present negotiations are proceeding with the Soviet authorities to avert a further trial of Mr. Brooke. No agreement has yet been reached, and it would not be helpful to Mr. Brooke to say anything now.

While echoing the hope that the torture of Gerald Brooke will soon be ended, may I ask whether it is recognised that an exchange for the Krogers would be a demonstration of the omnipotence of the K.G.B. and a boost for the morale and thus the audacity of every Soviet agent working in this country and, indeed, in the Western world? Furthermore, is it recognised that if this exchange takes place, in the event of the future apprehension in this country of Soviet agents, no British tourist, businessman or traveller to the Soviet Union will be safe from provocation, compromise and false arrest as a hostage?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that I can add to my previous reply.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that blackmail is always obnoxious whether practised by Governments or by individuals? Is he also aware that we on this side have complete confidence that he will pursue this matter to the best advantage of Mr. Brooke and the country?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of recent developments in France, his Department will consider giving practical assistance and financial support to those voluntary agencies concerned with promoting youth leadership exchanges between Great Britain and France.

We are considering in what further ways we might assist the voluntary organisation arranging exchanges of this kind. But we are limited by our present financial circumstances.

Is my hon. Friend aware that millions are spent in promoting exchanges of young people between France and Germany? Could not we spend even a quarter of that sum in promoting such exchanges between Britain and France?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that a considerable amount is already being done by Governments without any financial stimulus or support. There are, in addition, well over 2,000 French assistants in schools in this country, and from this country nearly half that number have gone to France. We should like to see more.

Is my hon. Friend convinced that the British Council is the best agent for these exchanges? Would he consider giving further assistance to the British Youth Council so that it could undertake the work?

The British Council is concerned with exchanges of young scientists and business executives. The Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges and the British Youth Council join to deal with the rest of the youth field.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the present position concerning proposals for discussions between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact countries on commitments in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals were made at the recent Western European Union Ministerial meeting at The Hague for a European Security Conference; and if he will make a statement.

As the House knows, studies are proceeding in N.A.T.O. The details of consultations in the Western European Union are confidential. But I can say that there was agreement at The Hague that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was the appropriate forum for concerting allied views. The essential element will of course be Soviet readiness for genuine progress.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that some of us felt that the action of the Canadian Government in announcing its unilateral decision to withdraw forces from Europe was unfortunate, to say the least? Can my right hon. Friend say what effect this is likely to have on the prospect of further talks about forces reductions? Will he continue his efforts to obtain discussions and agreement on this problem of the Canadian attitude?

The work in N.A.T.O. for mutual force reductions is beginning and the offer made in the communiqué of June, 1968, to have these negotiations with the Warsaw Pact Powers, stands. I hope the consideration by the Canadian Government will not have the effect which my hon. Friend fears.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite events in Czechoslovakia, it is vitally important to continue to try to get an agreement with the Warsaw Pact countries for mutual reductions in forces and weapons? Will he say whether he has considered the proposals for a permanent security commission, a proposal put forward by Mr. Brzezinski of the United States?

To the first part of the question the answer is certainly, "Yes". We attach the greatest importance to trying to achieve mutual force reductions. On the second part, I should like to study more closely my hon. Friend's suggestion and I shall write to him about it.