asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Foreign Minister of Roumania.

My discussions with Mr. Manescu were comprehensive and useful. They dealt mainly with international problems of common concern. Some questions of bilateral relations were also touched on. A copy of the communiqué which was issued after the visit of the Chairman of the Roumanian Council of Ministers is available in the Library of the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I have already seen the communiqué. In view of the lack of enthusiasm from my right hon. Friend and his Department about the security conference about which we are all concerned, does not my right hon. Friend think that it would have been better if he had taken more advice from Mr. Manescu and less from Mr. William Rogers of the United States Department?

No, Sir. I think that my hon. Friend has got this wrong. She will see from the communiqué that Mr. Manescu and I took a common view about such a conference. In any case, there is a later Question on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what commitments he has entered into with the European Free Trade Association countries regarding protection of their interests in the event of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

I would refer the hon. Member to the agreed communiqué issued after the recent E.F.T.A. Ministerial meeting, the text of which is in the OFFICIAL REPORT for the 12th of November.—[Vol. 791, c. 97–9.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen that communiqué? It still leaves unanswered a very difficult question. If the British Government sign the Rome Treaty and we adopt common external tariffs, what happens to the other E.F.T.A. countries which do not get in? Would we be obliged to raise tariffs against them?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, what happened at the E.F.T.A. Ministerial meeting was a reaffirmation of the position which the E.F.T.A. Council took up in London in April 1967, and this took account of the many differing objectives of the individual E.F.T.A. countries in the relationship with the European Community. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was reassured by one passage from the communiqué which came out of the Hague summit meeting, where those who took part in the meeting said that it was their intention that as soon as negotiations with the applicant countries had opened discussions would be started with the other E.F.T.A. members immediately afterwards.

Can the right hon. Gentleman help us further? When the negotiations take place for British entry into the Community, will they take place in parallel with negotiations for the entry of the other three countries into the Community, or separately?

This is a matter for the Six themselves. The updated opinion of the Commission was that the negotiations for the applicant countries should take place in parallel, and there are important practical arguments in favour of that course.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be extremely undesirable that we should have to raise tariffs again against goods from the other E.F.T.A. countries? Can my right hon Friend give an assurance that that will not be allowed to happen?

My hon. Friend is asking a hypothetical question about how prolonged negotiations with a number of countries will end. A great deal will depend on what the non-applicant E.F.T.A. countries decide they wish to seek in their own interests.

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 in the light of the outcome of the European Economic Community summit meeting at The Hague.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Great Britain's application to join the Common Market in the light of the outcome of The Hague summit meeting.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent developments inside the European Economic Community which have been notified to Her Majesty's Government because they affect the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the United Kingdom's application to join the Common Market following the European Economic Community Summit Conference at The Hague.

I would refer hon. Members to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to Questions on 4th December.—[Vol. 792, c. 1695–1703.]

Would he not agree that the entry of Britain could be instrumental in opening the way to a new phase of co-operation between the Common Market countries? Is it not important that the negotiations should be forward looking in this sense rather than that they should concentrate upon minor matters.

Yes, Sir, I am happy to find myself in general agreement with my hon. Friend. So long as we can negotiate acceptable terms for British accession, I should have thought there was tremendous and perhaps historically positive advantage for countries both on the mainland of Europe and for ourselves.

Would the Minister confirm that the present position about any supranational or federal structure in our relation; with Europe is that the Prime Minister for home audiences sticks to what he said in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on 6th February, that he is not in favour of a supranational structure and will give no support to it, whereas the position taken up by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at the Monnet Committee on 22nd July, as reported by the leader of the Liberal Party, was that he had no objections to a federal solution?

I thought that the hon. Gentleman might have grown weary of trying to draw this erroneous distinction. What the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said on the matter is identical.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that a more promising prospect in Europe is due not only to the robust attitude of the Government in the past two years, but also to the excellent work in Europe of voluntary organisations supported by hon. Members in all parts of the House? Would he not agree that the small subsidy paid to these organisations by the Government has been of great advantage to the national interest?

I agree with my right hon. Friend.

Is it not particularly encouraging that some of the statements at The Hague last week definitely recognised the fact that the present agricultural policy of the Six was most unsatisfactory both as regards surpluses and financial contributions?

Yes, Sir, I certainly believe that to be an encouraging feature of the results of the discussions at the Hague.

Would the right hon. Gentleman make clear what the Prime Minister did not make clear, whether the then existing agricultural regulations will be a precondition to negotiations, or whether it would be possible for Britain to negotiate for a change in agricultural policy and for a change in the method of financing?

The position about this matter is reasonably clear in the aftermath of the summit meeting. I do not wish to underestimate the difficulties associated with the negotiations, especially on agricultural matters. What the Six agreed at the summit was that they themselves should agree a definitive financial arrangement on agriculture, but they said specifically that this must be done in the context of seeking an enlarged community. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has just said, the Community also laid significant emphasis on the need to seek changes in common agricultural policies so as to reduce budgetary burdens. In addition to that it is widely recognised among the Six that the present common agricultural policy would place an inequitable burden on this country.

If my right hon. Friend is expecting major changes in the agricultural policies of the Six, would it not be wiser to know what these are if any before we commit ourselves?

No, Sir. The right thing to do is to seek negotiation at the earliest possible moment. We have been waiting far too long as it is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken recently to bring the Nigerian civil war to an end.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest efforts to promote a cease-fire in the war between Nigeria and Biafra.

I would refer to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave on 13th October. The Government continue to press both sides to negotiate for a permanent settlement. As the House knows, my hon. Friend is at present in Nigeria.—[Vol. 788, 12–16.]

Even if there were to be an international embargo on arms, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this merciless war may drag on for a long time? As the O.A.U. appear to be powerless, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the United States and other powers to try to force a compromise on both sides and the acceptance of a peacekeeping force in the Ibo area so that they no longer need fear massacre?

When the hon. Gentleman speaks about ourselves and the United States forcing a compromise on both sides, that is not a realistic way of approaching it. We and many others have done our best to bring both sides together. There is the possibility now of further African attempts at mediation, and it is particularly to these that we should give our support.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether the Joint Under-Secretary has asked if he could visit Biafra? Is it not time that somebody in authority visited Biafra, especially if a cease-fire or relief are to be discussed?

I do not rule out a visit of that kind. The House will understand that there is a difference between a private person, however eminent, visiting Biafra and a member of the Government visiting Biafra. It has not been the practice, except with those few Governments which recognise Biafra, for members of Governments to go there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much relief sent by Her Majesty's Government has reached unoccupied Biafra to date.

Her Majesty's Government have given to the International Committee of the Red Cross £950,000 for use on both sides of the conflict. It is impossible, however, to say how much of the International Committee's expenditure in the rebel area is attributable to grants from Her Majesty's Government. As Parliament was informed on the 4th of December, we have decided, subject to Parliamentary approval, to make grants of £100,000 each to Oxfam and the British Council of Churches, also for use on both sides.—[Vol. 792, c. 351.]

Will the Government give really massive aid, comparable with that given by other Western European countries, to Joint Church Aid, which alone is still flying food into Biafra? Secondly, will he consider transferring the vast stocks of food at Kotoneu to San Antonio and from there into Biafra?

I have replied earlier about the difficulties attached to Joint Church Aid operations. I would point out that the help which we have already given is considerable and is available on both sides in the dispute.

Will the Foreign Secretary give some consideration to the request by U.N.I.C.E.F. for extra aid?

That goes a little wide of the orginal Question, but I will gladly consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to initiate a meeting with Nigerian and Biafran leaders and other organisations involved to assure the continuance of all relief and mercy flights, and to promote a cease-fire and subsequent negotiations.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answers given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) and to supplementary questions on 27th November.—[Vol. 792, c. 609–12.]

Will my right hon. Friend take it that, notwithstanding some of the ill-informed, unjust and vulgar attacks on him by some sections of the ill-informed British Press, many of us understand his humanitarian endeavours to end this war and to bring relief, and we understand his fears for the Balkanisation of Africa, but will he agree that an effort ought now to be made to have Ministerial contact with both sides, particularly in the light of the statement made by Sir Louis Mbanefo to the effect that they are concerned not so much about sovereignty itself as about what that would mean as it affects the Biafrans?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. We are all anxious to secure, if it can possibly be done, both relief and an end to the war. If it be a question of providing the actual mechanical things needed for relief, this country and a good many others would be prepared to do anything within reason. The real and genuine difficulty is that, in order to secure relief, one has to secure a measure of agreement between the two sides in the civil war, which, unhappily, has not yet been forthcoming. We shall continue to do the best we can.

Have not my right hon. Friend and the Government done all they can at all times to bring relief to starving peoples in all parts of Nigeria, in spite of obstruction by the Head of State of that part of Nigeria still occupied by him, namely, Ojukwu?

I sincerely believe that that is and I assure the House that every time we debate this matter I listen most earnestly to see whether, from any quarter of the House, there comes any proposal which could be practicable either for bringing in relief or for ending the war. In my judgment, this country has acquitted itself well so far on both counts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Government of Spain over Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on Gibraltar, following changes in the Spanish Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relaxations have recently appeared of the measures being taken by Spain against Gibraltar.

So far, there has been no lifting of the Spanish restrictions. We are, of course, in normal diplomatic contact with the Spanish Government and intend to explore through the diplomatic channel every possibility of improving the situation for Gibraltar, to the benefit of Gibraltar, Spain and this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that these restrictions are damaging to the economy of Spain as well as to that of Gibraltar, and can he say anything about his conversations with Major Pelitza, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar?

I confirm that in our view there is a strong mutual interest in Spain as well as on the part of Gibraltar and this country to see these restrictions brought to an end. The present situation is sterile and is economically damaging on both sides of the frontier. There is a further question on the Order Paper about discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar. I do not think I should anticipate that question.

Is it not a fact that the newly appointed Spanish Foreign Minister recently has been making highly conciliatory speeches, speeches of a different order from those made by his predecessor? Does this not signify a different tone and a change in policy, and are Her Majesty's Government not proposing to take advantage of this more conciliatory situation to try to lift the restrictions afflicting Gibraltar?

With respect, the hon. Gentleman must have prepared that supplementary question before he heard my Answer. I told the hon. Gentleman and the House that we were intending to explore every possibility of improving the situation for Gibraltar.

Does not the first sentence of the Minister's original Answer lead inevitably to the depressing conclusion that Her Majesty's Government policy in this respect has failed and should be reconsidered?

The right hon. Gentleman ought not to reach such a gloomy conclusion at this stage. Obviously the lifting of restrictions is an absolutely vital element in improving relationships, but it is very early days at the moment.

Will the Minister confirm that there will be no talks with any representative of the Spanish Government until they have shown their good will by lifting some of the restrictions at the Gibraltar frontier?

What is important is to keep the interest of the people of Gibraltar in the forefront of our minds. Her Majesty's Government stand ready to talk, if holding talks seems likely to help the Gibraltarians in bringing a solution nearer. I am sure that is the right principle on which we should approach the problem.

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

The situation in the Middle East continues to cause us serious concern. There is an urgent need for progress towards a political settlement. I am pleased to say that talks between the representatives at the United Nations of Britain, France, the Soviet Union and the United States of America resumed in New York on 2nd December.

is there any sign that the resumed talks by the four Powers will be any more successful than in the past? Can the Minister say what has happened to the farcical situation over ships trapped in the Canal? Has there been any action by the Government on that matter?

On the first part of the question, it is much too early to say how successful the resumed set of four-Power talks will he. We have had only two brief meetings so far, but we hope that we will achieve more success and that it may be possible to send Mr. Jarring back to the Middle East to seek a settlement. Regarding the ships in the Canal, there is nothing more to report at the present time.

In view of the delay by the four-Power conference to reach some conclusion, would it not be more enterprising if they suggested to the Arab States that they should enter into unilateral negotiations with the State of Israel with a view to settlement? Is it not extraordinary that one of the four Powers, the Soviet Union, is sending arms to the Arab States, while another, the United Kingdom, refuses to send arms to the State of Israel?

On the first part of that question, it is certainly our hope that these four-Power discussions will reach an early settlement. On the question of direct or indirect negotiations, my right hon. Friend will know that there is an acute difference of view on this matter between the Arab States and Israel. One of the questions which has been discussed by the four Powers in the past, and which no doubt will be discussed again, is whether some kind of compromise may be reached by using Ambassador Jarring as an intermediary.

Are we to understand from what the Minister says that the negotiations to relieve the ships have broken down? Is it over 18 months since the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said that they were to be released almost immediately. What is happening about the question of insurance arising from the deterioration of the ships?

It is not true to say that the discussions have broken down, because we are still continuing to make efforts to release the ships, in common with other countries which have ships in a similar situation. We are not omnipotent in this situation. We are still hopeful that we shall be able to make progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the four Power talks on the Middle East; when he expects a decision to be reached; and to what extent British proposals have proved acceptable.

The four-Power talks resumed on 2nd December. We hope that the four will now make rapid progress in working out fresh guidance for Dr. Jarring. As the talks are confidential, I am afraid I cannot give any information on the subject matter of these discussions.

Does my hon. Friend need to be something of an intellectual to differentiate between hope and experience? Has he not reached the conclusion now that there is not the slightest hope of the four-Power conference coming to an agreement? But in any event, will he be kind enough to tell the House, and myself in particular, what are the British proposals, because nobody knows what they are?

I have already explained in answer to an earlier Question that we certainly do hope that these discussions may lead to four-Power agreement on the new mandate for Dr. Jarring to go to the Middle East to seek a settlement among the parties. As for British proposals, there is not at present a British plan for settlement of the Middle East problem, but, in the light of discussions, we shall consider what proposals we may wish to make to bring about an agreement between the four on a new mandate for Dr. Jarring.

Does the fact that it has been referred to the four Powers mean that the two Powers have reached some agreement which they have then referred to the four Powers?

These is no substantive agreement yet between the two Powers. As I said earlier, discussions are still continuing and it is our hope that it may be possible for them to bring to the four agreement between themselves on certain aspects of a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the International Civil Aviation Organisation with the drafting of a Convention to prevent the hi-jacking of aircraft.

The special sub-Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation has completed a draft of the proposed new Convention against hi-jacking; it will be submitted to the I.C.A.O. Legal Committee in February. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary told the hon. Member on 13th October, this draft Convention is designed to strengthen international measures to deal with hi-jackers.—[Vol. 788, c. 27–8.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the detention of the two Israeli passengers by Syria until the package deal was arranged and the 13 Syrian prisoners released by Israel highlights the danger of this whole business? Can we wait until February, when the matter goes before a Legal Committee, before something is done?

I entirely agree that the detention of the Israeli passengers by Syria was deplorable, and it is partly to deal with actions of this kind that urgent steps have been taken to negotiate this Convention. In fact, progress in reaching agreement on the Convention has been very rapid. Nothing more can be done until it has been ratified by a sufficient number of States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the French Government with a view to co-ordinating their efforts to secure a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

We have had regular and close consultations with the French Government about the settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute. Details of these exchanges must remain confidential.

In view of the disagreements between the Russians and the Americans, would my hon. Friend agree that there is no hope of a four-Power agreement unless there is strong and concerted action by the French and British Governments aimed at implementing the Security Council Resolution and inducing the Israelis to withdraw and working out and contributing to a security system on her frontiers?

It is too early to say that the bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union have broken down. They are, in fact, continuing. But we are in close touch with the French Government about the means of securing a settlement, and if the appropriate moment arose we might well wish to intervene in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.

What are Ministers doing beyond the suggestion to produce a European approach to this problem?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this matter is being discussed by the four Powers in New York. That is the appropriate forum for it. Only the four Powers have power to authorise Ambassador Jarring to carry on his discussions in the Middle East. We regard this as the appropriate method of dealing with the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that the authorities in Calcutta have decided to remove the last statue of Lord Curzon still standing in India; what request he has received that Her Majesty's Government should seek to arrange with the Government of India to bring the statue to Great Britain for re-erection on some suitable site; and if he will make a statement.

The authorities in the Indian State of West Bengal have recently moved a statue of Lord Curzon from Calcutta to the grounds of a residence of the State Governor. The statue is the property of the West Bengal Government. We have received some inquiries for information about this statue but no direct request for help in arranging for its return to the United Kingdom.

Is the new site of the statue one of dignity where it can be seen by those who, like many Indians, honour the memory of Lord Curzon, who contributed so much to the progress of their country and rescued its antiquities?

As I told the hon. Gentleman, the statue has been moved to the grounds of a residence of the State Govnor. This is a site of appropriate distinction and is not in any way derogatory to the memory of Lord Curzon.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, as we would like the Government to cut wasteful expenditure, with- out decrying Lord Curzon, many of us would not like money to be spent on bringing the statue back here?

I make no comment on my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now open negotiations with the Governments of, respectively, Malta and Gibraltar for the purpose of establishing therein, on those territories, in existing bases the British troops and defence and military equipment to be withdrawn following the declaration of a republic in Libya.

No, Sir. Existing facilities in Malta and Gibraltar adequately meet our requirements.

Does that Answer mean that the Government propose to scuttle ignominiously from Libya with all the British defence installations, or to tuck them away in Ulster or somewhere else, and thereby further reduce our strength in the Mediterranean? Why not use existing establishments in Malta and Gibraltar, both bases desiring added British strength?

If the hon. Gentleman can draw that conclusion from my Answer, he has greater powers of imagination than I gave him credit for. As he must know, negotiations are beginning today between Her Majesty's Government and the Libyan Government about the facilities which we may retain in Libya. We hope that there will be a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations. But I assure him that facilities in Malta and Gibraltar would in no way be an adequate replacement for our facilities in Libya.

Why not?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to whom Her Majesty's Ambassador in Libya is now accredited; and what progress has been made with establishing the new relationship of co-operation on a basis different from the Anglo-Libyan Treaty of 1953.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in negotiations with the Military Government in Libya; and if he will make a statement.

Since his arrival in Tripoli on 12th September, Her Majesty's Ambassador to Libya has been accredited to the Government of the Libyan Arab Republic. We are beginning negotiations today with the Libyan Government; we hope that these will help to bring about the new relationship between our two countries which my right hon. Friend told the House on 17th November we want to achieve.—[Vol. 791, c. 848.]

With regard to the new relationship, have those who raped three British women been brought to justice in accordance with the assurances sought by Her Majesty's Government—

The hon. Member may not anticipate another Question; there is a Question on the Paper about this.

I beg pardon. I did not know that. Will the hon. Gentleman give the name of the Head of the Libyan State?

I would rather like to have notice of the Question, but I think it is Mr. Qaddafi.

Would the Joint Under-Secretary of State seek to persuade his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to vary his theme, as distinct from the theme in which he indulged in June last, when he declared the Libyan Government to be friendly disposed to this country? What is the position now? Are they a friendly Government? Is there any hole of a settlement? Is my hon. Friend aware of the declared intention of the Libyan Government, a military junta in control, who are responsible for a revolutionary coup, to make war on the State of Israel? Do our Government support that view?

I have already explained that we propose to enter into a new relationship with this new Government of Libya, and we are, therefore, certainly hoping that our relations with them will be friendly relations. So far as their relations with Israel are concerned, they have, it is true, expressed sentiments somewhat similar to those of other Arab Governments. This is a matter for the Libyan Government. It is not for me to comment here on their policies.

Surely the hon. Gentleman must know the name of the Head of the State? Can he tell the House whether the question of the area for defence exercises by our troops has been included in the negotiations which it is hoped to conclude successfully?

The hon. Member will be aware that there is a technical distinction between Head of State and Head of Government. I think the information required is the name of the head of Government. The name, as I said before, is Mr. Qaddafi. On the second part of the hon. Member's question, all matters of concern between our two Governments will be discussed in the forthcoming negotiations. These will certainly include the question of our training facilities in Libya.

In view of the unsatisfactory Answer, I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment—but not today or tomorrow.

On a point of order. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that a few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) sought to raise a supplementary question about the raping of British citizens in Libya, and you said he could not do that because there was a Question later on the Paper concerning that matter. That Question is in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). At that time the hon. Member for West Ham, North was in the Chamber. He has subsequently left and, therefore, made it impossible for the House to deal with this matter, which is of public concern, and which my hon. Friend was prevented from asking about.

I have before asked the House not to raise points of order at Question time. The hon. Member's point is not a point of order for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many organisations have made representations to him that the proposed Convention for the Prohibition of Microbiological Methods of Warfare should be extended to prohibit chemical methods of warfare.

Since August, 1968, we have received ten letters mentioning both chemical and biological warfare. None made the specific proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Between the wars, successive British Governments took the view that the use of gas in international conflicts was banned by international treaty. If the Government have changed their mind because the use of CS gas in internal disputes is more humane than bullets, would it not be more straightforward to say so?

The question of CS gas raises a different point. I am aware, as my hon. Friend is, that the British position was laid down in 1930 following Questions in the House. But our present policy is to seek to make practical progress, and we feel that the best way of doing so is to concentrate on the draft Convention on biological warfare, which I hope enjoys my hon. Friend's support.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have put to the Geneva Disarmament Conference on the inclusion of herbicides in the Geneva Protocol.

None, Sir.

Is there not an odd contrast between virtuous statements on biological warfare and remaining silent on certain immediate issues of chemical warfare?

No, I do not think so. I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view. This is a difficult matter and it is hard to say the best way of making practical progress. We feel that the best way forward is to concentrate on the biological warfare convention because that form of warfare is at a sufficiently early stage to make good progress possible. My hon. Friend is an expert on the question of herbicides, and he knows that there is a dispute about the existing legal position under customary international law.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries still retain official national representation in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list all consular, trade or other diplomatic missions in Salisbury, Rhodesia, and state to whom the heads of these missions are accredited.

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Switzerland, West Germany and the United States have official representatives or maintain offices in Southern Rhodesia. Some have been downgraded since the illegal declaration of independence. The accrediting of diplomatic representatives is a matter between States and, therefore, the question does not arise in relation to Southern Rhodesia.

Does it not make absolute nonsense of our policy when apparently we are about the only civilised country which has withdrawn its representative? When will Her Majesty's Government wake up and face the facts of life and get back officially into Rhodesia before it is too late?

I made very clear in an answer some months ago the reasons for the withdrawal of our residual mission. No useful purpose could be served by keeping our mission there. If the hon. Gentleman will study the text of my Answer and the number of countries mentioned, he will realise that his definition of what is and what is not a civilised country is insulting to a great many States.

I am not sure what the Foreign Secretary meant by that. I thought that the countries he had listed were civilised. However, he probably recalls that only a short time ago he said that to maintain any form of diplomatic representation in Salisbury implied a degree of recognition unacceptable to this country. Would he relate that to those countries? Can he say what they are there for—to safeguard their national interests or to further their trade interests?

To deal with the various points, I was not suggesting, and if the hon. Member had listened to me he would have realised it, that the countries mentioned were not civilised. The implication of the hon. Member's question was that civilised countries consisted solely of ourselves and this list. The point I was making was that there are a large number of countries which no longer maintain representatives there. The main purpose of these countries maintaining representatives there is to look after the interests of their nationals. Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that subjects of this country who remain in a colony that is in rebellion must expect to do so at their own risk, and that we cannot condone this rebellion.

Will the Foreign Secretary say how many trading missions have been sent by other countries to Rhodesia?

Not without notice. That is a very different question.

Could my right hon. Friend confirm that to the best of his knowledge the countries whose names he has read are loyally abiding, so far as they are signatories, to the sanctions resolution?

Yes, I have no reason to suppose that that is not so. The particular United Nations resolution referring to representatives is non-mandatory.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, and the Government's failure to protect British nationals—

Order. The hon. Gentleman must give notice in the conventional way.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list the duties he has carried out in his statutory capacity as Governor of the Colony of Southern Rhodesia since the last Governor vacated his appointment.

I have not had occasion to exercise the executive authority of Southern Rhodesia as provided by Article 4(1)(a) of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution Order, 1965 since Sir Humphrey Gibbs received Her Majesty The Queen's permission to retire from Office.

I am not surprised at that Answer. A few minutes ago, the Foreign Secretary gave a long list of countries which maintained diplomatic or consular missions in Salisbury at present. Can he tell us to whom these missions are accredited, and to whom they present their letters of credence?

They are not accredited at all. As I said in my earlier reply, the question of accrediting does not arise since Rhodesia is not a State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what invitation he has extended to the now retired District Commissioner, Mr. Allan Wright, to discuss problems in Rhodesia, having regard to his knowledge and experience; and if, in the formation of Rhodesian policy, he consults with those who have worked in the field in Africa.

I have not yet extended any invitation to Mr. Wright. My Department is in touch with many sources of information and advice on Rhodesia, but the details of these are confidential.

In view of the fact that that is a very unsatisfactory Answer, am I not right in assuming that the present Government really do not know a very great deal about Africa and that it would be a very good thing if more attention were paid to those who work in the field and know more about the situation than do the present Government?

The Government have access to a great deal of highly expert information about the situation in Rhodesia, and we are aware of the writings of Mr. Wright, and have studied them with interest, and if he wishes to make any special representations to the Government we shall he very pleased to consider them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar.

I am glad to say that we were able to reach full agreement on a three Year Development Programme, designed to strengthen the Gibraltar economy, which in terms of British aid amounts to about £4 million. An agreed communiqué will be issued shortly to coincide with the return of the Chief Minister to Gibraltar this afternoon. I am arranging for a copy of the communiqué to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the financial aid will implement all the suggestions made in the Beeching Plan, and can he further say something about the constitutional future of Gibraltar? Surely it is impossible that it will always remain a colony? Is there not urgency about this because, according to the Treaty of Rome, if we enter the Common Market so does Gibraltar?

On the first point, the programme that I have just announced was agreed by the Government of Gibraltar and ourselves to be a full programme, to be carried out in a period of three years. It was generally accepted that any extra money could not have been used during that period. The programme includes a useful list of constructive projects inside Gibraltar. On the second point, we keep closely in touch with the Government of Gibraltar about the developments in Europe. It is only a few months ago since we had a very important constitutional development in Gibraltar, and the Preamble to that Constitution contains very solemn pledges on the part of Her Majesty's Government to the people of Gibraltar.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Chief Minister made any representations to him about the air connections between Gibraltar and the United Kingdom, which have been decreasing lately, leaving no flights at all on Wednesdays and Thursdays?

We are aware of the concern in Gibraltar about air communications. It is a concern that has lasted for some time. There is no specific point about that in the communiqué which will be issued later this afternoon.

Can I press the Minister a little on the second part of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? The policy of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar is integration with this country. Are the Government yet in any position to make any statement about their attitude?

This was an important meeting that has just taken place, the subject of which was the development programme for Gibraltar in the light of the Spanish restrictions. On that subject we came to a very important agreement indeed. I have answered the question about constitutional change in reply to a previous Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement.

As my noble Friend Lord Winterbottom, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Royal Air Force said in another place on 30th October, we have said all along that we shall have to reach a new understanding about the Anglo-Malaysian Defence Agreement to reflect the changed circumstances after 1971. This was made clear in the Communiqué of the 1968 Five-Power Conference in Kuala Lumpur, and this is fully understood by our Commonwealth partners. There has been no change in this position.—[Vol. 305, c. 226.]

As it takes two to make an agreement, was the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman agreed to by the Malaysian Government, or would it be a unilateral abrogation of the Treaty in 1971?

What I have said is that we shall have to reach a new understanding. We hope that confidential discussions to that end will begin soon.

Would my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of denying a headline that appeared in last Thursday's Daily Mail—"A Secret War"—to the effect that Britain was sending S.A.S. troops as a replacement on the Thai-Malaysia border?

That is a different question, which my hon. Friend should table.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the position of Singapore at present? Secondly, is it his definite intention that this agreement should be renegotiated in the lifetime of the present Parliament, or will it be left to his successors?

I hope that it will be possible to renegotiate this in the lifetime of the present Parliament. This is a matter depending not only on us but on the other parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the results of the December meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting so far as his proposals for a European security conference are concerned.

The Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council, which I attended, issued a Declaration on East-West relations on 5th December, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Her Majesty's Government fully support the constructive line taken in this Declaration.

Is it not a delaying tactic to postpone for six months the next N.A.T.O. meeting? Would it not be better to test the genuineness of the Warsaw proposals by making Western proposals? Why not emulate the initiative of Herr Brandt?

I would want to put it to my hon. Friend and the House like this. I want to see a conference in which all members of N.A.T.O. and all members of the Warsaw Pact and the European neutrals can take part, a conference so prepared and with such an agenda that it could really reduce tension in Europe. The proposals we have so far emanating from the Prague Declaration would not, I am sure, be acceptable to any country in N.A.T.O.

I agree absolutely with the way in which the Foreign Secretary has put his case, but will he confirm that the British Government would not attend such a proposed security meeting unless the Americans and Canadians were invited to be present, unless the German people as a whole were represented by the Federal Government, and unless, too, there were a clear advance understanding that the Brezhnev doctrine is not acceptable to N.A.T.O.?

On the first point, we have repeatedly made clear that we would not attend a conference of this kind unless our transatlantic allies in N.A.T.O. were there; in fact, I think that that is fully understood by the countries of the Warsaw Pact. I would not go along with what the hon. Gentleman said about Germany, but I take his point about the Brezhnev doctrine.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that the Swedish Government have proposed a programme of aid to North Vietnam; and if he will do the same.

I am aware of various recent statements by members of the Swedish Government on this subject. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, we have received no requests for aid from North Vietnam.

If such a request were received from Hanoi, would my right hon. Friend respond to it in the same manner as the Socialist Government of Sweden have responded?

In the first place, that is a hypothetical question. However, if we did receive such a request, we should have to examine exactly what it was that was asked, the availability of funds, and the possibilities of supervising the aid. I should not rule out an affirmative answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he gives to the Governments of dependent territories on security matters affecting applicants for entry permits.

The Secretary of State's responsibility for the dependent territories includes the giving of advice as appropriate, on a wide range of security matters. This may sometimes have a bearing on decisions concerning immigration matters, which are normally the responsibility of the elected Government of the territory concerned.

In considering these matters, does my hon. Friend agree that membership for a few months, while at university, of the Communist Party should not debar an established university teacher from going to teach in a Commonwealth university?

I have explained to my hon. Friend that the decision on questions of this kin3 and immigration questions is entirely for the territorial Governments concerned. All we can do is give advice where this is requested or is necessary. We have already had correspondence on the particular matter about which my hon. Friend is concerned, and I do not think that he will expect me to comment on it here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether postal services between Anguilla and St. Kitts have been resumed.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend gave on 21st July, 1969. It is not yet possible for an announcement of the official resumption of mail services from Anguilla to be made since certain formalities are required which have yet to be completed. I understand, however, that mail is, in fact, reaching St. Kitts from Anguilla.—[Vol. 787, c. 240.]

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of the United Arab Republic regarding participation by British firms in proposed oil-drilling operations in the Sinai Peninsula and its offshore waters; and if he will make a statement regarding the policy of Her Majesty's Government to such participation.

This country is only marginally involved in proposed oil operations in the Sinai Peninsula and its offshore waters since, according to our information, only one of the companies concerned is registered in England, and that company is a wholly foreign-owned subsidiary of an American company. We are, however, concerned about the legal implications of this development and are looking into them. We have received representations from the ambassador of the United Arab Republic on the subject.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that long-term projects of this sort initiated in occupied territory have the most serious implications, tending to show that the Israeli Government have no intention of complying with the United Nations resolution and leaving the occupied territory? Will he make clear that the British Government do not approve of any form of participation by a British firm in projects such as these?

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that such a development does have serious implications. I have already told him that we are looking into the matter for this reason. As regards the legal rights and wrongs, my right hon. and learned Friend probably knows that this matter either is already or may shortly be the subject of legal proceedings. For that reason, I imagine that he will not expect me to comment at this time on the legal rights and wrongs.

asked the Secretary of State or Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with the Government of Hong Kong in order to increase the rights of public assembly.

We have been consulted by the Governor in the preparation of a draft Bill to amend the Public Order Ordinance. One of the purposes of the Bill is to ameliorate some provisions of the Ordinance relating to the rights of public assembly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is quite good news? Can he say whether the discussions will reach a stage when we can say that three people are no longer a crowd and four have ceased to be a mass demonstration? Can we look forward to a situation of that kind, with reasonable opportunity for people to gather together in this British dependency to enjoy a little British liberty?

I have already told my hon. Friend that the provisions of the new Ordinance will in many ways improve the existing situation. It is designed to give better protection for the public against any misuse of powers or possible conviction of persons innocently involved in a situation which constitutes an offence under the Ordinance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will instruct the new British Ambassador to South Africa to make further representations to the Union Government on behalf of Mr. Philip Golding.

Representations have been made on behalf of Mr. Golding by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Dr. Muller on two occasions. The South African authorities have now said that Mr. Golding will be released after giving evidence at the trial which is taking place in Pretoria.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask, nevertheless, whether he has had his attention drawn to the statement by Chief Justice Bekker on 1st December, that Mr. Golding would be released if his evidence were satisfactory? In other words, this young man is placed in an impossible position. If he gives evidence for the Crown he will be released. He is therefore intimidated. My second question to my hon. Friend is to ask him whether, in view of the comments recently made by Sir John Nicholls, our retiring Ambassador, he is entirely satisfied on the nature of the representations which have come from the Embassy?

My attention has not been drawn to the first point which my hon. Friend referred to, and I will certainly look into it. As to his second point, we have had no evidence that there is any dissatisfaction with the representations which have been made on behalf of Mr. Golding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government will make to the programme of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in 1970.

I regret that I cannot make a definite statement today. Consideration is still being given to the level of our contribution for 1970.

That is not an entirely satisfactory reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the other place, when there was a debate on the European Refugee Commission, an undertaking was given by the Government spokesman that when the economic situation improved the High Commission's programme would be one of the first priorities? Will my hon. Friend keep this in mind for the pledging Conference next week?

I very much understand my hon. Friend's concern with this matter. It is certainly our hope that we shall be able to make an announcement on this within the next few days and be in a position to make a pledge at the pledging Conference next week, and that it will not be such as to be less in the future. Perhaps I may be allowed to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very valuable work which my hon. Friend has done in this Commission. We all know that it has done a great deal of good for refugees all over the world.

Why is not the announcement made of the amount to be contributed, since it has to be announced in the next two or three days, as he has just said, and since it has got to be announced next week anyway? Why does not the Minister come to the House to give the answer to this or any Question?

I cannot give the answer because no final decision about the amount has yet been reached.

On a point of order. I wonder whether the Minister who deals with Common Market problems has shed part of his powers, in view of the fact that my Question to him about industrial relations with the Common Market has been transferred to another Minister, and I have not been told of this.

That is a serious point of order. Ministers have a right to transfer questions—

On a point of order—

Sit down.

Sit down yourself.

The hon. Lady must control herself. I was about to inform her that she had raised an important point of order and that when a Minister transfers a Question it is usual for him to let the hon. Member know at the earliest opportunity that it is being transferred.

On a point of order. This is not the issue; I just put that in, Mr. Speaker. The issue is that on a matter affecting Common Market negotiations with which the Minister is concerned he has transferred my Question on that issue to another Minister. I am asking only whether his powers have been altered.

I have already answered that point of order. A Minister is empowered to transfer Questions.

On a point of order. In view of the refusal of an answer to my supplementary question on Question 40, and as the later Question No. 48 was almost accidentally not put and answered, and in view of the tremendous public interest in this Question and the extraordinary official advice given to our fellow subjects in danger in Tripoli, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you have received any request from the Minister to answer Question No. 48?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I have not received such a request. Had I received one, I would have called the Minister.