asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) to what extent the British Council has made use of teaching the English language through the medium of the initial teaching alphabet; and to what extent the Council has co-operated with the Initial Teaching Alphabet Foundation;

The British Council does not itself use the initial teaching alphabet at present for teaching English and has no books in this alphabet in its libraries. The Council is represented on the Advisory Committee of the Initial Teaching Alphabet Foundation and has co-operated in launching two experimental projects overseas.

First, I should like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. Will he look at the experiment in the Gambia? Does he not regard it as of great importance that people who learn English as a second language should only have to learn by this system 40 signs as against 2,000 ordinary characters?

The British Council has been co-operating in the experiment in the Gambia which the hon. Gentleman mentions, but he will realise that the problem of teaching English to a foreigner is quite different from teaching it to English children for the first time, and the initial teaching alphabet is much less relevant to foreigners than it is to British children.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will launch a further initiative to obtain an internationally agreed embargo on the supply of arms to either side in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on 21st October. I have nothing to add.

Will not my right hon. Friend agree that his repeated refusals to take any public initiative of this kind makes his constant blaming of the Biafrans for everything less and less credible? What has he to say about Group Captain Cheshire's statements? Are they not a formidable indictment of the closed-mind attitude which the Foreign Office has adopted throughout this whole tragic business?

No, Sir. I cannot accept that view at all. I have already explained publicly to the House the steps we have taken to try to get agreement both with France and the Soviet Union on this matter. I must repeat that if one wants a workable arms embargo, it must be combined with a cease-fire on the spot. With regard to what my hon. Friend said about Group Captain Cheshire. I would make just two points. First, we have, with the help of a great many people, obtained first-hand knowledge of what is going on in Biafra. Secondly, we were obliged to disagree with Group Captain Cheshire's judgment that what Colonel Ojukwu was concerned with was not secession but security. I wish that were true, but Colonel Ojukwu has himself explicitly denied it.

Surely, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about an arms embargo he is being totally hypocritical. The one thing that this Government are doing is stepping up arms supply to Nigeria, and his own miserable Under-Secretary admitted it yesterday. I am told that as much as 60 per cent. of the battle weapons are now coming from this country. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain that?

The right hon. Gentleman always uses words like "hypocritical" and "miserable" when he begins to run out of arguments. In the first place, we have made, as I have repeatedly explained to the House, efforts to get an agreement for an arms embargo, and for reasons that also have been explained to the House it has not been possible to reach such an agreement. The Government believe, and so do the great majority in the House, that it would be wrong for this country to give up arms supplies to Nigeria, because that would amount to condoning a tribal secession of great injury to Nigeria and African people as a whole. That, I think, is the view that the majority in the House have accepted. With the increase in size of the Nigerian Army, there has, of course, been an increase in the absolute amount of arms sent to that country. They still remain at about 15 per cent., by value, of all the arms which Nigeria is obtaining from abroad, and some of them, I may say, recently took the form of anti-aircraft defences, which I think it is quite legitimate to provide.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of British people have seen on the television screen the sheer horror of the starvation and near-starvation in Biafra and would like to see the Government make some positive contribution to ending the misery? Is he aware that it would be far more honourable to us as a nation to send food instead of continuing to send arms?

My hon. Friend may be a little anticipating other Questions on the Order Paper, but it is right to say, first, that we have made a very substantial contribution to the supply of food and medicines. Second, we played a proper part in helping bring about an agreement between the Red Cross and the Nigerian Government for a plan for daylight relief. Colonel Ojukwu objected on grounds that it would involve him in some military risk and said that he wanted a third party guarantee. Such a guarantee was provided by the United States, but Colonel Ojukwu still refuses to accept. In these circumstances, the blame for starvation cannot be laid at Britain's door.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, we shall come back to the question of food supplies on later Questions. Would he recognise that there is an increasing impatience that the British Government are not seen to be trying for an arms embargo? Is it not as well if either the French or the Russians seem to be objecting that they should be shown in the United Nations to be objecting?

I shall consider whether we should take any other step, but I do not want to deceive the House about this. We have examined it very carefully. I raised the matter when I was at the United Nations recently. I think it would be wrong to deceive the House into thinking that all that is needed is a few words to get something which I do not believe can be done without co-operation of the parties on the spot.

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the growing horror in this country that we are one of the main suppliers of arms in a civil war. Surely the Foreign Secretary is no longer suggesting that this civil war, which has gone on for two and a half years, is merely a tribal secession? Is there any reason why this Government —whatever the recalcitrance of the Americans, the Russians or the French —should not raise this publicly in the Security Council and let those who are not prepared to have an arms embargo be counted before the full glare of world publicity?

I discussed this with the Secretary General in New York. I do not believe we would succeed in getting agreement to get this inscribed on the agenda of the Security Council.

Why?

The right hon. Gentleman must realise how strongly African States feel about this issue of tribal secession, which is not something which can be brushed aside in the way the right hon. Gentleman thinks. This is at the heart of the matter and the welfare of Africans is concerned with it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the breakdown of the International Red Cross's negotiations for relief flights into Biafra and the declared inability of the Nigerian Red Cross to move supplies, he will now financially assist Joint Church Aid who are actively relieving famine both in Nigeria and Biafra.

No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government could not properly give aid for an operation through the air-space of a country with which we are in normal, friendly relations in contravention of the requirements of the Government of that country in accordance with international law.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that he is assisting what has become genocide by starvation. He knows that it is up to the human beings in Britain who want to support relief to act. He surely ought to do something about it now. Will he confirm or deny the truth of the article in The Guardian last week which said that he is trying to put pressure on the Churches to stop it?

Of course that article was not true. It is surprising that it should even have been published. For the reasons I have given, we cannot properly give aid for an operation of this kind. The right way and the most efficient way to get food into Nigeria is either by daylight flights or by land. We have played a considerable part in putting plans forward by which that could be done. It is by now quite clear who is responsible for the fact that the food is not going in in the way it could.

While not forgetting earlier comments about the mission of Group Captain Cheshire, is not my right hon. Friend puzzled, as I am, by the changing attitude of Colonel Ojukwu? On a Monday we are told that he is willing to discuss with no conditions and forgetting secession. Two days later we are told that conditions have entirely changed. How can we negotiate on this position?

This is difficult, but there have been statements on behalf of Colonel Ojukwu that he is prepared to talk without pre-conditions. I hope that that is correct and that, as that is also the Nigerian Government's view, if Colonel Ojukwu wishes it the talks could begin.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the existing situation for the House? Is it true that there could be now, if Colonel Ojukwu would accept them, daylight flights every day between 9 and 5, that the aeroplanes would start from outside Nigeria, and that on the aeroplanes the Red Cross could choose who would accompany the cargoes?

That is so. There is the further point that I have already mentioned, that there would be a guarantee from the United States Government that this would be done in a manner which would not give military advantage to the Nigerian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on efforts to end the Nigerian war; and if he will hold discussions with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and France regarding a joint ban on arms to both sides.

I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 13th October. The vigorous efforts of African statesmen to bring about peace talks are continuing. We are ready to support them if we can help in any way. On the proposals for a joint ban on arms, my information continues to point to the conclusion that an initiative of the kind suggested would not be successful.—[Vol. 788, c. 12–13.]

Is not Group Captain Cheshire quite correct in saying that our Government are laying all the blame on one side, when those of us who have been to both sides know that there is a desire for peace on both sides? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government put themselves in a position to act as mediator by ceasing their present attitude, act in an unbiased way, and do as the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) suggests—raise the matter in the United Nations?

There are several points there. First, if my hon. Friend has listened to the several speeches that I have made in this House, he will know that it is not true to say that we have put all the blame on one side. I have referred to the massacre of Ibos, and to the tragic events which preceded the war, on the assumption that solving the problem by armed secession was wrong.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman disclosing how prejudiced he is in this matter? Was it not his Government who were so confident that they could prevent all other countries in the world from providing any goods for Rhodesia? How can the right hon. Gentleman say on the one hand that that is possible and in the next breath suggest that he cannot get together with two countries to stop the supply of arms to Biafra?

That question seems to be prejudiced and nonsensical.

Would not Group Captain Cheshire, if he is satisfied about the sincerity of Colonel Ojukwu, and satisfied also that the Nigerians are not planning genocide, be better employed in trying to bring this home to Colonel Gjukwu? This is really the source and cause of this war. If it were brought home to him, might it not any longer be necessary to have these protracted inquiries into the causes and outturn of the war?

I hope that anyone who has any access to Colonel Ojukwu will urge on him two things: first, that he ought to agree to the daylight flights, particularly now that he has the third party guarantee for which he asked. Second, that he should be prepared to enter into talks without pre-conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government intends to vote for the expulsion of Greece from the Council of Europe at the Council of Europe at the Council's forthcoming meeting.

It would be premature for me to say now how we shall vote when the question of Greek membership of the Council of Europe is discussed at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers on 12th December. The Greek Government still have an opportunity to convince European opinion that they are prepared to make an early return to democratic practices.

Since there is no chance of the Greek Government changing their spots, will my right hon. Friend give a pledge here that if there is no change between now and the next meeting of the Council of Europe, when a decision will be made, Britain's vote will be for Greece to be expelled from that body?

Her Majesty's Government's decision remains as it was set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 7th May and subsequently in this House. It is that unless the Greek Government are in a position to conform to what is required by the Council of Europe, it will not be possible for that membership to continue.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Foreign Secretary has now taken legal advice on the question of whether in this question the unanimity rule applies or not?

We are quite satisfied on the question about the legal questions which lie behind voting in the Council of Ministers, but the House I am sure would hope that it will be possible for the necessary changes to be made inside Greece to prevent that kind of situation being reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now received the development plans from the Gibraltar Government; and what action is being taken to sustain the economy of Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline what Her Majesty's Government are doing to provide physical help to the people of Gibraltar.

Expert advice in various fields has been made available to the Gibraltar Government. At the invitation of Her Majesty's Government the Gibraltar Government have formulated development proposals which are now being considered in London prior to discussion at an early date with the Governor and Gibraltar Ministers.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he undertake to make a statement to the House when he has completed those discussions with the Government of Gibraltar?

Certainly, sir.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to a report from Madrid in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph that Washington has been suggesting a package deal tying a Gibraltar settlement with eventual Spanish membership of N.A.T.O.? Is there any truth in that? Will he give an assurance that no consideration will halt the steps now being taken to sustain the Gibraltar economy?

I can certainly give the hon. Member the assurance that we are pledged to support the people of Gibraltar, and we shall take all the necessary steps to do that. I am not responsible for what appears in the Sunday Telegraph, but there are other Questions about Spain later on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish the Beeching Report on the use of manpower in Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes consequent upon the Beeching plan for the economy of Gibraltar.

The report of the Manpower Mission to Gibraltar has been published and copies are available in the Library of the House. Certain confidential material has been omitted, but this does not in any way affect the recommendations of the report. These are being carefully studied by the Gibraltar Government in connection with future labour policy.

Will the Minister of State kindly say whether he anticipates early discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar upon the recommendations contained in the report?

As the hon. Member may have seen in the Press, the Governor of Gibraltar is to be in London this week and we shall be consulting with him. We would like talks to begin with the new Ministers of the Gibraltar Government as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government about French participation in the Council of Ministers of the Western European Union; and with what result.

Western European Union was one of the subjects which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary discussed with M. Schumann in New York on 20th September. He made clear to M. Schumann our hope that France would return to the Western European Union Council and take part in its work of political consultation.

As the Council has now been deferred to January, when it should be held in France under French presidency, will this not be a good opportunity to try to persuade France to come back to the Council of Ministers?

We would very much like to see France playing her proper part in the work of the W.E.U. Council. No date has yet been fixed for the next meeting of the Council. That is a matter for the permanent representatives, and they will be discussing it very shortly.

Was it made clear in the discussions that the French are no longer insisting on the completion of the agreement on agricultural financing before their willingness to discuss enlargement of the Community?

That is a different point. The W.E.U. Council is not concerned with that.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say that without the return of France the package of the budget of the next financial year would be impeded?

I should not like to speculate about a hypothetical situation like that. We hope that France will come back and play her proper part in the deliberations of the Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what explanations or apologies he has received from the Chinese Government in respect of the maltreatment of British subjects detained in China.

Repeated representations have been made about the detention and, where appropriate, about the treatment of British subjects in China. Such explanations as have been given by the Chinese authorities have been unsatisfactory. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State summoned the Chinese Chargé d'Affaires on 11th November and expressed our grave concern on these matters.

Is not the behaviour of the Chinese Government towards foreigners quite inconsistent with the normal standards of intercourse between civilised Powers? Is not the time approaching when if China persists in this attitude we should review our attitude towards her?

I agree that the attitude by China towards some of the persons detained in China is deplorable, and we have made persistent representations, for example, about Mr. Grey. Our main concern is with some of these people who are detained, and we are doing all possible to ensure their release as soon as possible.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the attitude of China towards certain of our people from Britain is in retaliation to the treatment meted out by us, or through us, to prisoners in Hong Kong?

It has been suggested that the detention of Mr. Grey was in retaliation for the detention of certain people in Hong Kong, but there was a complete difference between the two cases. Those detained in Hong Kong had been tried in courts of law and detained according to the processes of law, but that was not true in the case of Mr. Grey.

How many of our citizens are being held in China with or without trial? Has diplomatic access been granted to any of them?

There are nine British subjects at present under detention in China. Six were released not long ago. There is access to most but not quite all of those British subjects. I should need notice to be able to give the exact number.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made representations to the Spanish Government about firing on 21st October last by Spanish coastal batteries near the British liner "Uganda" off Cape Trafalgar; and whether he has secured any explanation.

No, Sir. We have looked carefully into this and there are no grounds for making representations. We do not attach any political significance to what happened.

Without attaching political significance to what happened, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the normal warning of practice firing on seas which are part of the trade route was given; and, if not, why not?

I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman said about not seeking to make this a political issue. The normal notice was given to the Gibraltar maritime authorities, but the ship in question did not call at Gibraltar. I can best explain the matter by saying that the incident involved firing by the Spanish authorities in exactly the same way as would be conducted by British authorities in the same circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign arid Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for the training of Anguillans as technicians for the management of their island.

Her Majesty's Commissioner is endeavouring to arrange technical training for Anguillans to meet specific urgent needs.

Does not the Joint Under-Secretary realise that what is wanted in Anguilla when the British forces and British police have left is a comprehensive training programme so that the Anguillans themselves can run their island? From what he has just said, it does not sound as if they are doing enough. Can he tell us more?

Quite a lot is being done. Six teachers from Anguilla recently started three-year training courses in St. Lucia. Three more teachers have started degree courses at the University of the West Indies. There are places for four more as air traffic controllers. As regards the future, we are hoping to arrange for the recruitment and training of more Anguillans for technical posts in agriculture, education and public works.

Has a decision yet been taken about the composition of the Commission which is to be set up to consider the future of Anguilla? When is it expected that the Commission will get down to work?

There is another Question on the Order Paper on the first part of that supplementary question. It is hoped to be able to announce the names of the members of the Commission tomorrow. The Commission will start work soon after that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the arrangements for the holding of the Security Conference proposed by the Warsaw Powers in the light of the invitation issued by the President of Finland; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiative the British Government intend to take at the December meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the holding of an East-West conference on a European security pact.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government concerning participation in the proposed European Security Conference; and whether he will make a statement.

The N.A.T.O. Powers have been for some time engaged in an examination in depth of ways of initiating useful discussions with the Warsaw Pact Powers on fundamental problems of European Security. For example, at Reykjavik in 1968 N.A.T.O. called on the Warsaw Pact Powers to join in discussions of mutual force reductions. This invitation has so far not been answered, but it remains open. In preparing for the December meeting of N.A.T.O., we are taking into account with our Allies the Declaration issued by the Warsaw Pact at Prague on 31st October, and the invitation issued by the President of Finland.

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House that artificial barriers will not be placed in the way of continuing with the discussions about a security conference, because for many years the Warsaw Pact Powers have been anxious to get a conference of this kind organised and have received a rather cold reply from the Foreign Office?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's premise. I assure her that there will be no artificial barriers placed from the N.A.T.O. Council side. Indeed, the present position, as I see it, is that the N.A.T.O. Council has made positive proposals to which we have not yet had a response from the Warsaw Pact Powers.

Would it not be a wonderful thing for peace if such a conference resulted in the mutual force reductions to which my right hon. Friend referred? In that case, why was it that at the recent conference which he attended he, instead of taking the initiative, appeared to drag his feet?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend prefers to believe what he reads in the newspapers instead of coming and having a word with me about what I said. I do not believe that the Press reports accurately reflected what I said at the Council meeting. To give one isolated quotation, I said at the N.A.T.O. Council that we must continue to probe and to seize any opportunity that may exist of improving East-West relations. I went on to say that we must be ready to assume a positive posture at any time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that every member of he alliance is brought into these and all such discussions?

Yes, certainly. We have made it clear from the beginning that any general European security conference must be a conference between the N.A.T.O. alliance and the Warsaw Pact alliance and, therefore, must include both our transatlantic allies—Canada and the United States—from the beginning.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on British policy concerning the application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Great Britain's application to join the Common Market in the light of the conference of European Economic Community Ministers at The Hague.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation with regard to Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave on 13th October to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). [Vol. 788, c. 3–5.]

Can we now make it finally clear to our Western European friends that there can be no question of allowing into this country a flood of expensive French farm produce to the hurt of our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth, the home producer, and, most of all, the British housewife?

I think that the Government's position at this stage is very clear. We have put down our application. We have publicly stated the conditions that we attach to that application. We have said that we have to come to terms with the common agricultural policy, but decisions still have to be made—and this is what I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend—by the six members of the Community themselves about the nature and working of that policy. Then there have to be negotiations.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has any firm evidence that the attitude of the French Government has changed on this issue, and can he say that he is confident that the French veto will not be exercised once again if negotiations are begun?

As regards the attitude of the French Government, I have very much in mind what the Foreign Minister of France said during the General Assembly meeting of the United Nations, which was also attended by my right hon. Friend. If I remember rightly, he then said that he thought that British membership of a wider European Economic Community was indispensable.

While waiting for the negotiations to develop, will the Government make a study of the relative decline in the standard of living in this country over the years compared with that in the Common Market countries? Are British families not entitled to know by how much they would be better off even now were it not for the misguided opposition of hon. Members in this House to our entry?

I think that on reflection my hon. Friend will feel that he put the matter slightly inaccurately, though I think that his main argument is a strong one. It is not that our standard of living has declined, but that it has been increasing less quickly than the standard of living in the countries of the Six. I think that it is important for all of us who are engaged in this historic debate to concentrate our attention on the standard of living, and not simply on the cost of living.

Is it still the Government's intention, as and when negotiations open, to press for special arrangements for New Zealand?

Yes, Sir. The position about New Zealand is exactly the same as set out in the White Paper put before the House in 1967.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Secretary take a look at this afternoon's edition of the Evening Standard? In it my right hon. Friend will see a statement by the head of the Economic Department of the Confederation of British Industry in which he throws an icy douche of cold water on the whole project.

I must confess that I have been so busy preparing my replies to the House this afternoon that I have not had an opportunity of seeing the afternoon edition of the Evening Standard.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the Prime Minister's promise that a White Paper or some similar document would be published setting out the Government's new estimates of the cost and the pros and cons of joining the Common Market? Is the publication ready? If it is, when are we likely to have it?

The publication is urgently in hand. It will be made available to the House and to the nation as quickly as is consistent with giving the nation all the necessary information.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what grants 'are paid by his Department to organisations working for British membership of the European Economic Community; and how much is paid to each organisation.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 3rd November and to the reply given to my hon. Friend himself on 1st November, 1968.—[Vol. 790, c. 26; Vol. 772, c. 5.]

Can my right hon. Friend say whether any of this public money is spent in explaining to our Western European friends the majority view of the British people that we should not proceed with the application?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to accept the assumption about the majority view of the British people—[HON. MEMBERS: Why not?] Because I think that the House of Commons and Her Majesty's Government are bound in these matters to rest on the majority view when it was last expressed in this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the reply given to me by the Joint Under-Secretary of State it was said that £5,000 a year is paid to this pro-European Council for promoting an understanding of the attitude of the British people towards Europe? Can the right hon. Gentleman say that that money will be withdrawn if it is not putting abroad in the Common Market countries the true attitude of the British people that they do not want to go into the Common Market?

I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be under a misapprehension about the facts. The current grant to the organisation to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring, which is Britain in Europe, is £7,500. It is used to help to promote a proper understanding in Europe of the British point of view generally on European affairs. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is hypothetical.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in the last six months from members of the Commonwealth concerning the effects on their economies of a possible United Kingdom entry into the European Economic Community.

Exchanges between Her Majesty's Government and other Commonwealth Governments are, of course confidential, but I can confirm that the question of Commonwealth interests involved in British membership of the European Economic Community has been discussed both bilaterally and multilaterally on a number of occasions during the last six months. The meeting of the Commonwealth Finance Ministers which took place in Barbados in September provided, for example, an important opportunity for an exchange of views with Commonwealth Governments.

Has any positive approval been given by all members of tie Commonwealth of the Government's insistence on going ahead with the negotiations, and, further, has any positive assurance been given to a country like, in particular, New Zealand that no agreement will be ratified by Her Majesty's Government unless and until the interests of New Zealand are safeguarded?

The position of New Zealand, like the position of the developing sugar economies, has been made clear in our application, and, as I said earlier today, that position remains absolutely as it was originally stated in 1967. I myself had the honour of leading the British delegation to the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Trinidad, where we had a most vigorous debate on this matter, and I was left with the general impression that there was an increasing understanding among the Commonwealth countries of the desirability of British membership of a wider European economic community. Many of the countries of the Commonwealth are making their own arrangements both with the European Economic Community and among themselves., in the form of various free trade area and common market arrangements. I think that the general view throughout the Commonwealth was that they could not deny to us the right to do the kind of things which they themselves were seeking to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Economic Community Commission and the Council of Ministers concerning the proposal to merge the treaties which have established the Common Market, Euratom and the European Coal and Steel Community, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Do not these emergency proposals provide an excellent opportunity for an initiative by Her Majesty's Government in promulgating some form of treaty embodying a European Association which precludes both supranational and the federal characteristics present in the Treaties of Rome and Paris which are so unacceptable to a large number of people in this country, and now to many in Continental Europe?

I think that the present position is very clear as regards the three treaties. The Councils of the three European Communities were merged in July, 1967, but the six nations themselves have not so far taken any further steps to merge the treaties. We have made an application to adhere to the treaties, and the treaties lay down carefully what obligations are involved.

Is it not a fact that particularly Euratom and the Iron and Steel Community are far from working satisfactorily in the E.E.C., and should this not be fully acknowledged? Second, what comment has my right hon. Friend to make about the nationalisation of steel in this country, which was adversely criticised and claimed by a recent E.E.C. publication to be outside the terms of the Treaty of Rome?

I understand that there is no question but that our arrangements in this country regarding the organisation of the steel industry are consistent with British membership of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has now completed the study undertaken to examine the implications of communications sanctions against Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

The study is continuing, and I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State said in this House on 13th October.—[Vol. 788, c. 21–2.]

When does the Minister expect to conclude the study, what are the factors holding up its conclusions, and has not ample evidence been adduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) to indicate the self-defeating futility of such an exercise?

It is true that the study has taken longer than we expected, but we hope to have results in the fairly near future. As regards the advantages or otherwise of communications sanctions, feelings on this are mixed in this country, in the Commonwealth and in the United Nations, but it is entirely understandable that this should be one of the measures being discussed and considered for the purpose of making sanctions effective.

In view of the great long-term importance of the precedents being set by the sanctions imposed on Rhodesia, will my hon. Friend recommend to his right hon. Friend that he should give the House a White Paper setting out the whole history of sanctions and what has happened?

I think that the course and development of sanctions is well known, but I shall consider what my right hon. Friend has said.

Will this study make any distinction between the tightening of sanctions against the Smith régime and the injuring of innocent people? Does he realise that any proposal to stop postal communications between families in this country and their close relatives in Rhodesia would be regarded by most people as inhumane, rather petty, and possibly counter-productive?

The Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is concerned with the application of sanctions as a whole, and this question of communications sanctions is one of the many subjects which it has to consider. In considering communications sanctions, obviously, it will take some account of factors of the kind which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but, clearly, we must balance against that the possible advantages in terms of greater effectiveness. Communications are a two-way function, and, we, therefore, have to take into account not only any harm which may be done to Rhodesia by cutting off communications but also any disadvantage to us in preventing us from making our views known in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to Her Majesty's representative at the United Nations regarding the attitude he is to adopt to the Portuguese Government's request for compensation for losses of trade consequent upon the application of sanctions against Rhodesia.

None, Sir. The Security Council has not decided to take up this question.

Since Article 50 of the Charter expressly endows any third country which feels itself damaged by sanctions with a right of appeal under the Charter, why has Lord Caradon not called the Council together to discuss the Portuguese Government's complaint—or does the United Nations Charter apply only to countries which have not offended the Foreign Secretary's sensitive and selective conscience?

The interpretation of Article 50 of the Charter is subject to dispute. But Portugal is a member of the United Nations and is subject to the decisions of the United Nations, just as any other members are. If any country is to raise this Article in connection with sanctions, it should be not Portugal but one or two other countries, such as Zambia, which have suffered far greater economic problems. It is not for us, in any case, to take up this question with the Security Council. It is open to the Security Council to consider it at any time, and it has decided not to do so.

Will my hon. Friend instruct Her Majesty's representative to express the contempt of Her Majesty's Government for all the actions of Portugal in Africa?

It is not for our representative at the United Nations to express his opinion about all such actions, but our opinion of Portugal's deplorable failure to apply sanctions in general has been made clear on many occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet the new West German Foreign Minister.

I met Herr Scheel in Bonn on 14th November and we had a very useful first exchange of views.

I am glad to hear that the Foreign Secretary took an early opportunity to meet the new Minister. May we take it that he had a wide exchange of views informally, and that he dealt also with the question of relations between the Federal Republic and Eastern Germany, both politically and economically?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that the discussions were confidential. However, I can properly tell the House that, naturally, we discussed among other things relations between Eastern and Western Europe, which would include the point which he raised.

In view of the increase in exchange costs of British Army of the Rhine consequent upon the revaluation of the Mark, will my right hon. Friend seek an early opportunity to renegotiate the offset agreement to cover the extra cost?

Our discussions on 14th November did not cover defence questions, but Her Majesty's Government are aware of the implications of the point my lion. Friend has raised.

In has discussions with Herr Scheel, did my right hon. Friend gain the impression that the initiative and lead which the West German Government have given in regard to signing the Non-proliferation Treaty is likely to be taken up by the other non-nuclear Powers?

I could not say for certain. I hope that that would be so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has received about the intention of the United States Government to maintain their contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will seek an assurance that substantial reductions of United States military strength in Europe will be contingent upon similar Soviet withdrawals.

The American Secretary for Defence, Mr. Laird, has emphasised on more than one occasion that the United States has no programme to reduce American troop strength in Europe either in this fiscal year or the next.

Are Her Majesty's Government generally in agreement with the American Government about the likely effects on our vital interests in Europe and beyond and on the interests of our allies if progress is made towards a Soviet-American détente? Is there general agreement with the United States Government about the effect upon us of such a détente?

Yes, Sir; we keep in the most thorough consultation about these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has given to Her Majesty's representative at the United Nations regarding that organisation's failure to fulfil its responsibility for ensuring that the desires of the inhabitants of West Irian regarding the future of their country were properly ascertained during the course of the current calendar year.

Responsibility for carrying out the act of free choice in West Irian lay with the Government of Indonesia, not with the United Nations. The Secretary-General was authorised by the General Assembly to appoint a representative to carry out his responsibilities under the 1962 Agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands to advise, assist and participate in the arrangements for the act. He has now submitted a report on the conduct of the act and the results thereof, and has thus carried out the tasks entrusted to him.

Is it not a fact that this is the one territory in the world for which the United Nations assumed direct responsibility for ensuring, among other things, free movement, free speech and free choice in this exercise which the hon. Gentleman has just said has been carried out, but is it not evident from the Secretary-General's representative's report that none of these things has in any way been carried through? How does the hon. Gentleman, therefore, explain the Government's deafening silence in the matter, given the interest which they always express in the United Nations and the Charter?

It is not true that the United Nations was given direct responsibility for this territory or even for administering the act of choice. This matter was governed by the agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands reached in 1962. The United Nations was given responsibility only for sending a special representative of the Secretary-General to observe the act of choice. In fact, his comments were not quite so unfavourable as the hon. Gentleman suggested, since his main conclusion was that

"it can be stated that, with the limitations imposed by the geographical characteristics of the territory and the general political situation in the area, an act of free choice has taken place in West Irian in accordance with Indonesian practice, in which representatives of the population have expressed their wish to remain with Indonesia."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what indications have been given by the Israeli Government of their willingness to implement the 1967 Security Coun cil resolution; and if he will make a statement on the progress towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The Foreign Minister of Israel, Mr. Abba Eban, spoke about Israel's acceptance of the 1967 Security Council resolution in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly on 19th September. The full text of Mr. Eban's speech is in the Library of the House.

What success has the right hon. Gentleman had in persuading the Israeli Government that a United Nations guarantee of new frontiers after withdrawal from Arab-occupied lands and an end of the state of war could be relied on next time?

I think that it is well known that the Israeli Government's doubts about the certainty of such a a guarantee are one of the difficulties in reaching a settlement. But this is by no means the whole story in reaching a settlement. What we must do through the four-Power talks and Dr. Jarring is to try to make out a workable settlement on the lines of the Security Council resolution.

Is it not right that Mr. Eban has also said that nothing is not negotiable, and that the Israelis have modified their position and agreed to Rhodes-type talks, which were subsequently dismissed by the Egyptian Government? Does my right hon. Friend agree that recent bloodand-fire speeches do not help to lower the temperature in the area?

My hon. Friend is quite correct on his first point. He also correctly describes the Israeli Government's attitude to what are called Rhodes-type talks. There seems to be some misunderstanding and disagreement about exactly what that phrase means. As to the speech of President Nasser to which my hon. Friend refers, a speech of that kind is unhelpful and drives home how important it is to obtain a settlement before the danger becomes more acute.

What is the British interpretation of the wording of the 1967 resolution? Does the right hon. Gentleman understand it to mean that the Israelis should withdraw from all territory taken in the late war?

No, Sir. That is not the phrase used in the resolution. The resolution speaks of secure and recognised boundaries. Those words must be read concurrently with the statement on withdrawal.

Can my right hon. Friend say precisely how far the Israelis have discussed the question of security if and when they return to their old territories? is not this a case where perhaps the French and British could take an initiative, since the Americans and Russians seem to have become bogged down in commitment to one side or the other?

There has been some progress in the talks between the Soviet Union and the United States. I agree that it would be desirable for the Four to resume their talks to try to work out at least the beginning of a settlement that would conform to everything in the Security Council resolution.

Is not the situation in the Middle East drifting towards inevitable disaster? Cannot the British Government take an initiative? Would not an additional guarantee such as that suggested in my later Question on the Order Paper increase the confidence of Israel that any settlement would be honoured?

It would be better to wait until we reach that Question.

In view of the recent declaration by Colonel Nasser that the Middle East problem can be resolved only by force, and the attitude of another Arab Government, that of Libya, towards Great Britain, is not the United Nations resolution just a farce? Will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the only country in the Middle East friendly disposed towards Great Britain is the State of Israel?

There has been some criticism in the House of hon. Members trying to advance their Questions by linking them with others. There are Questions later about Libya. I have already expressed my view about President Nasser's speech. I do not believe, despite that speech, that we should regard a disaster as inevitable, and certainly we should not set aside the Security Council resolution as the basis of a settlement. If any settlement that is workable and will last is reached, it will be broadly on the basis of that resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy towards South Africa, following his recent meeting with the South African Foreign Minister.

There is no change in Government policy towards South Africa.

Did the South African Foreign Minister stress his Government's desire to play a greater part in the defence of the free world, and did the right hon. Gentleman assure his guest that Her Majesty's Government did not necessarily think that the ideals of Western freedom would be more secure by having the military support of the South African régime?

I did not say anything like that in the course of conversations, which were confidential.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that British economic involvement in South Africa has tended to increase recently? Is there a danger in this that we shall have a greater and greater stake in the status quo, and that this might affect our political attitudes in the period ahead?

There has been an increase of trade between us and South Africa, but I take the view, which I have expressed in the House before, that we must desire an increase of peaceful trade with all countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the guidance and assistance offered by the British High Commission in Nairobi to Asian holders of United Kingdom passports; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that our High Commission in Nairobi takes all proper steps to safeguard the interests of Asian holders of United Kingdom passports and that any advice or assistance they may require is freely given by the High Commission staff concerned.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not the impression I have received from a number of representations I have had from reputable and reliable people living in Kenya, who are bitterly concerned about the treatment they and their friends are receiving at the High Commission, particularly from the counter staff? Can it therefore be made clear to all those who work at the High Commission that these Asians are our citizens and our responsibility, and should therefore be treated with courtesy and respect?

In general, I think that it is true to say that the staff of our High Commission are very well qualified to advise, and are very anxious to advise and give as much help as possible. I note what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I shall make sure that everything is done to ensure that the general instructions are faithfully carried out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent consultations with the Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand.

Mr. Marshall and I had confidential discussions on 6th and 17th October primarily about the implications for New Zealand of Britain joining the European Economic Community. We had a cordial exchange of views in the course of which the positions of our respective Governments were re-stated and well understood.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it right that his consultations with Mr. Marshall took place while Mr. Marshall was able to have extensive consultations within Europe, and did he return feeling that there was an insuperable difficulty in finding a special arrangement for New Zealand if Britain should join the Common Market?

I had talks with Mr. Marshall both before and after his visits to Europe. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on his talks with other Governments, but I am very much of the view that there is no insuperable difficulty here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take following the unilateral cancellation of Great Britain's right to bases in Libya.

The Libyan Government asked on 29th October that we should enter into negotiations with them for the early evacuation of our forces from Libya. We informed the Libyan Government on 13th November that we hoped to establish a new relationship of co-operation on a different basis from that of the Anglo-Libyan Treaty of 1953 and that we are, therefore, willing to open negotiations to this end immediately.

In view of the instability of military dictatorships and feudal sheikdoms in that area, will my right hon. Friend be influenced less by sterling balances and oil and more by the moral obligation to the only democratic State in that area, which faces genocide?

I take it that my hon. Friend is referring to the question of arms supplies in the Middle East. I would refer him to what I have said earlier about this, that it is not our practice to reveal details of specific transactions. We judge particular requests from the Middle East on their merits, and I explained to the House on 30th October what I mean by that phrase. That policy applies to the sale of arms and military relations with Libya and other countries in the Middle East.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the general wish is to have the best possible relations with the new régime in Libya? At the same time, will he also acknowledge the nearly 30 years of mutually beneficial co-operation we had with the old régime. particularly in the war years?

I certainly acknowledge the fruitful co-operation there was in the past. I think that it is important, as I said in my original reply, to get a satisfactory new relationship now.

(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement about the arrest of the Nigerian diplomat in the constituency of Norwood last Saturday.

Police inquiries took place on the morning of 15th November about a car which was causing a serious obstruction in a No waiting area in Brixton. The licence plate bore a different number from the Road Fund licence disc and there was a possibility that the vehicle might have been stolen.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the police in Lambeth will continue to work with all sections of the community and do what they have done hitherto—try to maintain the best possible race relations within the borough? My right hon. Friend has already confirmed that the car registration plates differed from the Road Fund licence disc and that this car was parked in the most congested and clearly marked "No waiting" area of my constituency. Can he also confirm that this diplomat did not produce his diplomatic papers at the time and that while people enjoy diplomatic immunity in this country they have an equal duty with all other members of the community to try to maintain good relations in the places they visit?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those comments. The police certainly endeavoured to deal with this matter in a manner which would have caused the minimum damage to any relationships either with any Government or with any diplomat, or, indeed, with any normal member of the public. If this gentleman had co-operated with the police by telling them what was the nature of the ownership and had answered a few simple inquiries, the whole matter would have been over very quickly. Alas, Mr. Gomwalk did not do so.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the vehicle was carrying a C.D. plate on the front or the back? Have Her Majesty's Government considered inquiring into the great latitude which C.D. plate holders have in this country and whether there is not a case for tightening up the regulations?

That is a wider question. But as the reply given in the House on 22nd October last showed, there were about 26,000 cases of diplomats who declined to pay traffic penalties in the Metropolitan area during the last 12 months. Diplomats really do have a responsibility to conduct themselves, when they are in this country, in a manner that is expected of ordinary citizens here.