asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations about the correct geographical location of Edinburgh were made by the United Kingdom Ambassador in Iraq to the General Automobile Company of Baghdad, who insisted that cleansing vehicles manufactured in Edinburgh and purchased by them should be marked showing the place of origin as Edinburgh, England.

No representations were in fact necessary. The General Automobile Company of Baghdad has now agreed with the Edinburgh firm concerned that this description will not be used on future shipments.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he take steps to ensure that members of our Diplomatic Services overseas are fully informed about Scotland and, for that matter, Wales and Northern Ireland and about their distinctive products so that they can promote interest in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and their trade prospects and not just those of England?

Certainly. I am happy to be able to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that our officers are fully aware that Edinburgh is in Scotland, and that there is no doubt about this.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware of the discrimination against the Chinese language in Hong Kong; and whether he will legalise the use of the Chinese language in the Colonial Assembly and the law courts.

This is an important matter. The Chinese language is used by the Hong Kong Government wherever the convenience of the public or the protection of individual interests so requires. The Government have recently established a committee to advise on the possibilities of extending its use. The use of the English language in the proceedings of the Legislative Council is prescribed by the Standing Orders of that body, the amendment of which is a matter for the Council itself. Interpretation facilities are available in all courts of law.

Is not the situation as intolerable for the Chinese in many cases as it would be if we did not speak Welsh in Swansea or Aberystwyth? Is the Under-Secretary aware that a deputation of the Hong Kong Federation of Students will soon be here with more than half-a-million signatures upon a petition and that I shall have much pleasure in accompanying the deputation with the petition to No. 10?

I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that I met the Federation of Students on a recent visit that I made to Hong Kong. The only statutory requirement prescribing the use of the English language relates to the proceedings of the urban council. The Council's powers are limited both in scope and in relation to the urban area. If the urban council thinks that there is scope for using the Chinese language in its deliberations I am sure that the Hong Kong Government would be sympathetic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British aid to Somalia.

We are at present providing technical assistance to Somalia at the rate of about £150,000 a year, of which £44,000 is for the training of Somalis in Britain. We are also making a grant of £56,000 in this financial year to help Somalia to fulfil its pensions obligations to officers of the former British Somaliland Protectorate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is meagre and that we have a continuing legacy to our former dependencies—for instance, North Somalia, North Somaliland in the old days—particularly in the matter of teaching the English language? Will he ensure that a little more than this is done?

I understand that. It is in education that we are making a considerable effort.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now terminate the grant made from public funds to the British Council for the European Movement, in view of the controversial propaganda carried on by that organisation.

No Sir. As has been made clear on previous occasions, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant is given to assist the British Council of the European Movement in organising exchanges of views with other Europeans.

Is not the Minister aware that this organisation is carrying on propaganda throughout this country with which a great many taxpayers disagree? Though it is entitled to do this at the expense of private subscription, is it not a public scandal that taxpayers' money should be used for this purpose?

The right hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood the position. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office grant is not available for publicity work directed at opinion in the United Kingdom.

What were the arrangements in relation to this grant when the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) was a member of the Government? Were they not the same?

They were the same.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make available to hon. Members the documents presented by Her Majesty's Government to the European Economic Community in July estimating the amounts which would be payable to the European Economic Community budget on the basis of the United Kingdom becoming a member.

I would refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 10th November.—[Vol. 806, c. 120.]

Is it not essential that hon. Members should have all the information possible on this crucial issue? What reason is there for keeping this document secret?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the House should have all the information possible. That cannot include confidential exchanges.

Were the estimates made by Her Majesty's Government and presented to his colleagues on the negotiating body finally accepted by his interlocutors?

I could not give that information, which is part of the confidential exchanges. We have put in papers indicating the sort of figures that we think would arise. They have replied, and we are still discussing the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has now made of the effect of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market on the United Kingdom's balance of payments; and how far this differs from the latest estimate by the European Commission, which has been given to him.

The effect will depend on the terms which are still being negotiated.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that not particularly helpful reply. Is it not obvious that the original British negotiating position in relation to our balance-of-payments costs of entering the Community were wildly unrealistic? Is it not a fact that this unnecessarily fuels the fires of the anti-European lobby in this country?

The figures varied from the wholly acceptable to the completely unacceptable and the totally improbable. The trouble with so many of these figures is that at various times everything depends on a variety of assumptions; and at this stage we cannot say which is the most or least valid.

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

At this stage I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 29th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 439–41.]

In view of the suggestion about a referendum, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to agree that it is most unlikely that a price will come out of the negotiations which is either clearly acceptable or clearly unacceptable? Is it not a fact that there will be many considerations which are impossible to quantify and which are not susceptible to determination by means of a referendum?

I am sure that a referendum would be most unsuitable in this matter. [Interruption.] I refer the House to an Answer given by the Leader of the Opposition on 25th November, 1969, when he was Prime Minister. He said that a referendum on this issue would be

"contrary to our traditions in this country".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 199.]

He also suggested that Government Ministers who had always put forward this view might resign if they took a contrary view.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a statement which appeared in The Times recently about the frequency and volume of leaks of information from the countries of the Six about these negotiations? Will he therefore make very frequent announcements to this House so that we may be relieved of the position of inferiority of information vis-à-vis the peoples of those countries?

Those who read The Times should never feel any sense of inferiority. There are informal reports from time to time, and I am always available to answer Questions in the House.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of certain obvious difficulties we have in making calculations as to where our advantage lies? For example, would he agree that unless he raises certain issues with the Six, such as the implications for Britain of the proposal for an economic and monetary union, we shall never be able to reach a reasonable judgment as to the results of these proposals?

I am sure that there are many issues which will be discussed while these negotiations are going on.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the entire fruit-growing industry in this country is extremely anxious because he appears not to have discussed the problems of this industry in any primary negotiations so far? Would he give a categoric assurance that he has this industry's interests and well-being reasonably at heart?

I am happy to give that assurance. In the context of agricultural problems we, of course, discuss horticultural problems as well.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when he last reported to the House on this matter he said that agreement had been reached on protecting the bacon, eggs and milk markets of the United Kingdom? Does he agree, on reflection, that that statement was somewhat exaggerated and that, in fact, there is no agreement on the methods by which the bacon, eggs and milk markets of this country will be protected?

I do not suppose that any agreement which we reach could give permanent protection to anybody anywhere. However, what we received were assurances that the procedures which would be followed would protect our interests in the way I set out in that statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he is having with the Governments of the European Economic Community with a view to promotion of closer European unity in the political sphere.

Her Majesty's Government have received from the Federal German Government, in their capacity as Chairman, a copy of the report of the Six Foreign Ministers and we have commented on it.

In view of the excitement created among some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and some commentators outside, by the Werner report on monetary integration, can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the pace of monetary integration is bound to be dictated by the pace of political integration, on which the views of the British and French Governments are likely to be fairly identical?

That is certainly so.

Is it not a fact that the French Government take a very independent view in relation to the political situation in Europe from that taken by the other five members? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman like to say something about the views of the French Government at the moment?

I am not answerable for the views of the French Government. At the end of the day they try to take a Community view, but in the course of forming the Community view every member of the Community has the right to express his own opinions, and will do so.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the House how he reconciles the Prime Minister's rigid and dogmatic insistence that British foreign policy should be determined exclusively by the narrow view of Britain's national interests with the Prime Minister's simultaneous claim that he is moving towards political integration with Europe, in which British foreign policy will disappear and simply be part of the foreign policy of the Continent as a whole?

It is a British interest, I think accepted by both sides of the House, that we should try to bring the current negotiations to a successful conclusion, believing that British interests and those of the rest of Western Europe are closely bound up together in all fields.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations to join the Common Market.

I have nothing to add at this stage to the statement I made to the House on 29th October.—[Vol. 805. c. 439–54.]

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that our television and radio programmes and the Press regularly ignore or play down the rôle of the European Parliament? In any statement that he makes will he draw attention to the possibilities of democratic control of the Commission by development of the European Parliament?

That has not arisen in the course of our negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the Anglo-Italian declaration of 1969, which I think was generally acceptable to the House.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is growing disquiet, on both sides of the House, at the continued refusal of the Government to report regularly the state of negotiations? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this growing disquiet is heightened by the statement by the President of the N.F.U. that his union is having regular consultations before and after each visit to the negotiating table at Brussels? Is it not time that the House was put in the same privileged position?

I made a statement after the first Ministerial meeting that I attended. My predecessor made similar statements after the meetings that he attended. There will be another Ministerial meeting on 8th December, and I envisage that I shall be making another statement after that. Meanwhile, I am always available to answer Questions in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the position of Hong Kong in relation to the negotiations for entry into the Common Market.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 27th October and to my statement on 29th October. [Vol. 805, c. 64, 439–41.]

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would be helpful if Hong Kong could be included in the generalised preference arrangements which are being worked out in U.N.C.T.A.D.?

Yes, Sir, and we are continuing to press that point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had access to the working paper on political union prepared by M. Davignon, Political Director of the Belgian Foreign Office, and other officials of countries in the European Economic Community; and whether he will make a statement in regard to the degree of consultation and the position taken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has submitted to the European Economic Community Her Majesty's Government's opinion on the Davignon Report on political unification; and whether he will place copies of both the Report and his opinion in the Library of the House.

There have been full consultations. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) earlier, Her Majesty's Government have given the European Economic Community their comments on the Davignon Report. A copy of the Report has been placed in the Library of the House.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend in this context explain what precisely is the significance of the term "European unity", used more than once by his predecessor in his initial speech to the Community in July, and, in particular, what degree of political element there is in that phrase and with what institutional apparatus he sees effect being given to it?

One must always consider the word "unity", as my hon. and learned Friend will, I am sure, agree, in its context. I should be happy to construe the phrase "political unity" in any way my right hon. and learned Friend likes and on any occasion. However, I do not think that it is possible to give a short answer.

As we all agree about the importance of the working paper on political unification, is it not quite wrong the only copy in the Library should be in French? This makes it hard for some people, like myself, to read it.

I will certainly see what can be done about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations Her Majesty's Government has made to the European Economic Community concerning the recently concluded fisheries agreement.

I have nothing to add to the replies given to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 2nd November and to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 27th October.—[Vol. 805, c. 258, 68.]

As the E.E.C. reached agreement on its fisheries policy without reference to the views of the applicant countries, is it not clear that even if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did make representations, the E.E.C. countries would not take much notice of them?

I do not think that it is that clear. Certainly the Six have the right to regulate their own affairs while they are the existing Community. What we have said is that it does not help our negotiations if changes in the positions of the parties take place in the course of them. We have made some pretty strong representations about the likely effect of the fishery regulations if they were applied to us.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be absolutely candid and tell us where we stand? Is it not a fact that we shall have to take holus-bolus the fishing policy of the Six? There is nothing secret about that. We do not want to fish in their waters, but they want to fish in our waters. Would not their fishery limits give them authority to land fish at ports used by our deep-sea fishing vessels? To what are we committed?

We are not committed to anything; we are not members of the Community. What we have to accept is that a matter like this must be discussed in the course of negotiations. We were asked for our comments and we have given them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken in the last four months to give publicity to the political effects of entry into the European Economic Community; and what steps he proposes to take in the future.

It has been made clear on numerous occasions that the Government believe that Europe can emerge as a Community expressing its own point of view and exercising influence in world affairs not only in the commercial and economic but also in the political and defence fields.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, however successful he is in his negotiations, the acceptability of the terms which he wins will depend on the level of political will among the people of the country? Does he not think that he and his right hon. Friends should get into the country and create this political will?

We have made our general view clear from the outset. I think that the House understands that we are awaiting the outcome of the negotiations. It is only when we have obtained an outcome to the negotiations that we can present to the House and the country the reasons for accepting the result of the negotiations, or admitting their breakdown.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to announce his decision about the supply of arms to South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with other Commonwealth Ministers about the sale of arms to South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will delay a final decision on the supply of arms to South Africa until there has been a full exchange of views at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

We have not yet reached a conclusion on this matter.

What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received from the Nigerian Government about this impending decision? Would he agree that it would be a great irony if, after the controversial steps which Britain took to maintain British influence in Nigeria during the civil war, we were now to force Nigeria into the arms of Russia by this policy?

I certainly hope that we shall not force Nigeria into the arms of the Soviet Union. The exchanges that we have had with Commonwealth countries must, of course, be confidential until Her Majesty's Government take a decision.

In this connection, would my right hon. Friend agree that those who would have us believe that the main source of danger to this country springs from the problems of race—though I agree that these problems are important—are completely wrong, that the main source of danger remains Soviet power and that this menace is steadily increasing?

Soviet power can of course be a menace and if there were a monopoly of Soviet power in, for example, the Indian Ocean, the West might find its options closed as to the policies that it might wish to pursue. The problems of race are also, of course, problems of which we must take very careful account.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the careful and very proper consultations which he has already had have led to a much better understanding of the British position over this issue?

I hope that that is true. What has happened in the Mediterranean and the pattern which might be introduced into the Indian Ocean has certainly impressed those whom we have consulted.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is no hurry to announce a decision in this matter and that on an issue which may well prejudice the future of the whole Commonwealth, it would be proper for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers together to discuss it, especially as their forthcoming meeting is to be comparatively soon.

I will certainly bear in mind what my right hon. Friend says. I do not think that anybody could accuse us of not taking time to consult the Commonwealth.

Reverting to an answer which he gave to an earlier supplementary question, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he agrees with his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence that the presence of the Soviet Fleet in the Indian Ocean is nothing to get steamed up against? [Hors. MEMBERS: "Against?"] Yes, to get steamed up against or, indeed, to get steamed up over?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are five frigates of the Royal Navy allocated to the Indian Ocean with the duty of blockading the Port of Beira? Is he further aware that the whole of Her Majesty's Opposition strongly support the plea made by his hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that a decision should not be taken until there has been a chance for collective consideration by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers in Singapore?

We certainly have no intention of getting steamed up in this matter. However, Governments must use foresight, and the present Government are responsible for this nation's security. We must, therefore, look ahead and see what plans can be made for the security of the Indian Ocean.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman's question about the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), that will certainly be taken into account.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a further statement of Government policy regarding the level of Government aid to developing countries.

The Government's proposals for an expanding aid programme were set out in the White Paper, Cmnd. 4515

While welcoming the decision to adopt the Pearson target, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say what action he is taking to encourage private investment to ensure that it acts as a pump primer for Government aid?

This is important, and it is to this end that we have set up a working party to examine the possibility of stimulating private investment in developing countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the vital importance of maintaining the public contribution in this sphere, particularly because of the services which it can provide and without which private investment is hardly valuable?

Yes. I recognise not only its importance but the importance of maintaining and increasing it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to fulfil the plans of the previous Government for the publication of a White Paper covering all the aspects of his present overseas aid policy?

I said quite recently that I would consider this. I am still considering it and I have the matter very much in mind. However, I am not able to say anything further about it at present.

Will my right hon. Friend consider the great help which private enterprise can give to aid if only it can insure against the inability to remit profits?

That will naturally be one of the matters that the working party will examine when considering steps to stimulate private investment in the developing countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on aid to Malta.

The difficulties over the division between gift and loan for the £23 million, remaining available under the 1964 Agreement on Financial Assistance, have now been resolved. The flow of aid to Malta has therefore been resumed.

With permission, I will circulate a fuller statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I very much welcome that statement. Has the decision been to give Malta a 75 per cent. grant? How long was aid to Malta held up by the previous Administration to coerce the Maltese Government?

Apart from the £3 million for the dockyard and £1 million for the historic buildings, the division between grant and loan is 75 per cent. to 25 per cent., which is the same as the division in the first quinquennium. There has been a delay, but I hope that development in Malta will now be resumed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the increased strategic importance of Malta, with Soviet penetration in the Mediterranean, and yet balance that against the distorted effect upon the Maltese economy that purely military work and military aid may have in that area?

We should all recognise—not only ourselves, but our partners in the North Atlantic Alliance—the strategic importance of Malta. This is not being discussed now, but it will no doubt be discussed in the next year or two.

Following is the information:

The discussions with the Malta Government, in accordance with Article 5(b) of the 1964 Agreement on Financial Assistance, were reopened at the end of July. Agreement was reached on 6th October on the division between gifts and loans in respect of the period of five years ending on 31st March, 1974.

It has been agreed that the amount of approximately £23 million still available under the 1964 Agreement, the proportion which will be made available by way of gift will consist of £1 million for the restoration of historic buildings in accordance with Article 7 of the Agree-merit, the £3 million available for the dockyard under the settlement of 31st March, 1968, and in addition 75 per cent. (approximately £14·25 million) of the balance. The other 25 per cent. (approximately £4·75 million) of that balance will be by way of loan.

Further discussions at official level on the disbursement of aid to Malta in the current financial year were concluded satisfactorily on 16th October. The flow of aid has been resumed with the payment to the Malta Government on 20th October of £6·5 million of the grant element out of a total sum of £11·2 million available for drawing in the current financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider the appointment of a roving ambassador for the purpose of explaining the policies of Her Majesty's Government in African territories within the Commonwealth.

I am not at present convinced that there is any necessity to supplement the normal diplomatic channels. Her Majesty's Ambassadors and High Commissioners maintain a regular contact with the Governments to which they are accredited and explain our policies as required.

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain, then, why there is such almost universal hostility among the African members of the Commonwealth to the policies of Her Majesty's Government? Would he hazard a guess whether this is because they do not understand the policies of Her Majesty's Government or because they understand them only too well?

I think that it is partly because the policies are not understood. Our recent talks with Commonwealth Prime Ministers and other leaders of Commonwealth Governments in Africa have, I think, helped explain Her Majesty's Government's policy.

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

The basic situation is unchanged. We continue to stand by the people of Gibraltar and the economy, with the help it has been possible to give from here, is successfully withstanding the effect of the Spanish restrictions. But these unfortunately remain in force, although there has been some reduction of tension over the past year.

Whilst I accept that improvements have taken place recently through the talks between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Spanish Foreign Minister, does my right hon. Friend agree that the loyal people of Gibraltar deserve urgent help to main- tain their standard of living, which has suffered seriously since the closing of the border?

I accept that there is a responsibility to help them. We are providing aid to the tune of about £4 million under a three-year arrangement negotiated by the previous Government.

Does the Minister of State agree that the referendum held in Gibraltar recently under British authority was a valuable way of enabling the people of Gibraltar to show whether they wished to join Spain or remain within the Commonwealth?

Referenda can be very suitable, perhaps, in certain circumstances and in some cases, but we have never accepted them in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in the four power talks over the future of Berlin, and summarise the Government's main objects in these negotiations.

The 10th round of Four Power talks at Ambassadorial level is taking place today in Berlin. The Allied objective is to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union which will eliminate potential causes of tension from the situation in and around the City and which will secure practical improvements for the ordinary Berliner.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the view that a failure by the Soviet Government to agree to the very reasonable demands we are making about the future status of Berlin would make the holding of a European security conference to discuss much wider issues an extremely doubtful proposition?

Yes, Sir, but I do not think that we need anticipate that the Berlin talks will fail. Progress has been made so far, and I hope that the Soviet Union will agree to easement of access and transit arrangements which will make the life of the ordinary people of Berlin much easier than it is now.

Whilst I echo the right hon. Gentleman's hope, will he confirm that Her Majesty's Government's position is the complement to that which his hon. and gallant Friend suggested, namely, that if progress is made on the Berlin matter, one major obstacle to the early holding of a European security conference will have been removed?

If a European security conference is to be held, it must achieve something practical, and therefore considerable preparation of the agenda of such a conference will be necessary. I do not have a closed mind at all. I think that if there were really good preparation for it there is something to be said for it, but it will depend largely on what good will the Russians show over Berlin.

What has become of the apparently mutual agreement that there should be a standing commission—organ, I think they call it on the other side—set up to go into the question of such a conference?

I think that there are two matters here. There is the question of preparation, for which a body would have to be set up to make sure that a conference was properly prepared. There is another proposition that there should be a standing organ following such a conference which would look at all matters of European concern. These are two parallel matters which must be worked out together.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Chinese Government's arrest, imprisonment and release of Mr. Peter Crouch.

We welcome the release of Mr. Crouch. This is undoubtedly a step in the right direction. We should like this release to be followed by the release of all British subjects still detained in China.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and wish him well in his new office. Has he read in today's issue of The Times the account by a former Prime Minister of France of his very recent visit to China? If the hon. Gentleman has not done so, will he do it? Is he aware that if he does he will find more good sense in what the French ex-Prime Minister said than in any information he will get from any British agent who has been in China?

I have read the article. It is very interesting.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement arising out of the Wooding Commission's Report on St. Kitts and Anguilla.

As I stated on 6th November a Senior Official from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been in St. Kitts and in Anguilla to hold preliminary discussions on the Report, with both the Government of St. Kitts and with the Anguillan leaders. My right hon. Friend is considering the Report in the light of those discussions.—[Vol. 805, c. 1424–5.]

Now that St. Kitts has apparently accepted the Report and Anguilla has rejected it, as I rather feared, could my right hon. Friend give an indication of his own attitude and whether he hopes to be able to use the Report as a basis for discussion between the two sides, perhaps with himself in the chair?

I am most anxious to get a satisfactory solution of this problem. I am in close touch with both the Government of St. Kitts and the Anguillan leaders. I should like to have time for fuller discussions before making any comment about the position of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are still detained in China; and if he will make a statement.

There is still one British subject detained, Mr. Johnson, of the Chartered Bank in Shanghai, and four are believed to be detained, in China. We have made clear to the Chinese Government our grave concern about them on many occasions. The latest was on 4th November.

Will my hon. Friend consider that when discussions take place about the admission of China to the United Nations he should draw the attention of the Chinese to the provisions for human rights in the Charter?

Our relations with China are showing some improvement. We should like to see a further improvement, but the continued detention of British subjects in China, underlined by my hon. and gallant Friend, is a serious obstacle.

If we want to improve our relations with China, could we not do something to reduce the number of British and American agents who are being given shelter in Hong Kong, which is British territory, in order to spy against China?

I think that that is an extraordinary allegation. I am not aware of any British or American agents based in Hong Kong.

There are 800.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place a copy of his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations on 24th September 1970 in the Library of the House of Commons.

I did so on 2nd November.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is in this country the widest possible agreement with the view that he expressed in that speech, namely, that the use of terror and violence is never justified, even against a régime as odious as the South African régime? Is he further aware that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are committed, by a resolution of their party, to supporting the use of terror and violence in South Africa?

The latter part of my hon. Friend's question would seem to be right, unless the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is in a position to say that it is not so. This is not my responsibility, but his.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that his hon. Friend's statement in his supplementary question, apart from being offensive to the well-known Scottish family to which the Foreign Secretary belongs, in view of its long history under the Black Douglases and so on, is also insulting to the members of the Special Operations Executive in the last world war when we all, on both sides, recognised the need to use violence and terror to overthrow a régime which maintained itself in position exclusively by the use of oppressive powers?

If that is the excuse which the right hon. Gentleman seriously advances, I can only say that it is the lamest that I have ever heard. Of course nations must defend themselves in war. That is admitted. What my hon. Friend was talking about, and what I was talking about in my speech at the United Nations, was the use of freedom fighters in peacetime in other countries, which is a different matter.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that throughout the history of Europe brave men have sought to overthrow tyrannies which have maintained themselves in power by violence by using violence themselves, both in peace and in war? Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise, as does the World Council of Churches, that if the use of force is ever justified, the use of force is justified against a violent and repressive tyranny?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will think out the implications of what he said. Whatever may have happened in the past, it is surely much too dangerous to interfere with force over the frontiers of other countries and to interfere in their internal affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the peacekeeping machinery which exists within the United Nations; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. In his statement to the Commemorative Session in New York on 23rd October my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister urged the speedy completion of the work of the United Nations Special Committee on Peacekeeping, whose task is to establish proper procedures for the organisation, control and financing of peacekeeping.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general support for the policy enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the United Nations is something which should be made to work, and not something to be worshipped?

I strongly endorse that view. I wish that we could find an effective way of making it work. In this context it is one of the most difficult and intractable aspects, and one which the Government have always been seeking to resolve.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. Gromyko.

I had about six hours' talks with Mr. Gromyko. The main subjects we discussed were Anglo-Soviet relations, European matters, the Middle East and Indochina. It was useful to hear a full explanation of Soviet views and to have these contacts with the Soviet Foreign Minister at an active time in East-West relations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent years our balance of trade with the Soviet Union has been continuously adverse, and has tended to get worse, and that the remedy for this situation, in view of Soviet trading methods, lies entirely in the hands of the Soviet Government? Did my right hon. Friend raise this matter with Mr. Gromyko?

We had quite a long discussion about how this situation might be remedied.

Was the question of a European security conference discussed? Why is it that although 24 European Governments are supporting the proposal the Foreign Secretary, from the indications in his public speeches—and from what he said today—seems to be dragging his feet? Surely considerable preparation should not be used as an argument for postponement, delay or even frustration altogether?

The position is that the Warsaw Pact countries have made certain proposals. These are being considered by the N.A.T.O. allies, and at the next N.A.T.O. meeting we shall look at the question of a security conference. Nevertheless, if this is to be useful, and not to be simply a propaganda exercise, it will need the most meticulous preparation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the functions of the European Integration Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

It advises my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers on policy in relation to European integration; the European Economic Community; the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom; the European Free Trade Association; the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement; and economic aspects of Western European Union.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those were the functions of the European Department? Is there any significance in the change of name?

No, there is no particular significance.

Is the Integration Department considering alternative initiatives in the event of the E.E.C. negotiations breaking down?

I do not envisage their breaking down.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the principles which govern Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

The principle which governs our policy is that a settlement in accordance with the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967, would be in the best interests of all concerned.

When, sooner or later—and we all hope sooner—agreement is reached within the terms of that resolution and the boundaries of the State of Israel are finally fixed, does not my right hon. Friend agree that Israel may reasonably expect some guarantee of those boundaries so that she may continue to live in peace within them? What has my right hon. Friend to suggest for that?

Yes, Sir. Without wearying the House, I think that the House will remember that on a number of occasions from the Opposition benches I have said that it was only reasonable that if there were to be a settlement, Israel should enjoy security comparable to that which she is able to enjoy from her own strength now, and I am sure that that is right. As to the actual form of the guarantee, I think that it would be better to wait for discussions between the parties.

While strongly welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reassertion that Israel must enjoy equal security after a settlement to that which she enjoys today, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government support bilateral initiatives to reach settlements of at least part of the problem such as, I assume, were envisaged by the recent meeting of the Israeli Deputy-Prime Minister with King Hussein of Jordan?

I do not know that it is for Her Majesty's Government to support such approaches as have been reported to have been made by Israel. I think that it would be better if we wait to see what comes out of such conversations before Her Majesty's Government express a view.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of moves towards the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict in which British interests are involved.

The cease-fire on the Suez Canal has now been extended. We hope that it will soon prove possible for Dr. Jarring to resume his mission.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask him to confirm that his recent speech at Harrogate in no way altered Her Majesty's Government policy in this area?

It does not. Anyone who read the speech from start to finish would see that at regular intervals I said that any settlement must be agreed between the parties.

Does not the Foreign Secretary recognise—this is something which did not appear from the Harrogate speech—that it is quite impossible to expect Israel to cede her hold on the Golan Heights, for example, from which her settlements were shelled incessantly over a period of 20 years? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his policy on this issue?

That is quite right. I think that it falls under the heading of what I have just said, that Israel must have comparable security if a peace arrangement is to be made. During that speech, I was thinking, as I have often said before, of demilitarised zones properly guaranteed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that the undertakings given at Yalta and Potsdam and the peace treaties with Rumania, Bulgaria and Hungary will be kept in force notwitstanding the terms of the agreement between West Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the Treaty signed between the Federal Republic of Germany and the U.S.S.R. will in itself affect the undertakings to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. The Treaty expressly provides in Article 4 that it

"shall not affect any bilateral or multilateral treaties or arrangements previously concluded"

by the parties to it.

In so far as the wartime agreements refer to self-determination is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong opposition to the view that détente is somehow synonymous with putting the stamp of legal and moral responsibility on the Soviet Union's position in East and Central Europe?

The Federal Government of Germany, while hoping to introduce more flexibility into its relations with East Germany and with the Soviet Union, has been meticulously careful to protect the allied position, both in Berlin and in relation to the whole of Germany, so far as a final peace settlement is concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official welcome has been accorded Western Samoa on becoming a member of the Commonwealth.

Consultations about Western Samoa's membership of the Commonwealth were conducted, as is now the practice, by the Commonwealth Secretary-General, through whom we expressed our welcome. It is customary to send a message to a country at the time it achieves independence. This was done in Western Samoa's case on independence in 1962.

As Western Samoa has been independent since 1962 and has, after mature reflection, applied to become a member of the Commonwealth, would it not be fitting for us in this House to send its people our warm welcome at this time?

Yes. My hon. Friend's Question gives a very happy opportunity for that, and I endorse every word he said about it. I am sure that both sides of the House welcome Western Samoa as a member of the Commonwealth.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to implement the British Solomon Islands Order of 24th March, 1970.

The Order was brought into operation by a proclamation of the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific on 10th April, 1970. Elections to the Governing Council were held in June. The Council was first constituted on 15th July and it held its first public meetings later that month.

As conditions in the Solomon Islands are so different from those prevailing at Westminster, may I ask my right hon. Friend to convey to those who have worked out the constitution the congratulations from all of us here? Might we at the same time ask my right hon. Friend to convey to those who are working under the constitution our good wishes for the future?

Yes. I would not want to cast aspersions on Members of this House by comparison with the Solomon Islands, but I recognise that there is a difference and I am only too happy to endorse what my hon. Friend said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of Great Britain's co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding President Nixon's latest proposals for peace in Vietnam.

We welcomed these proposals as a fair and reasonable basis for a negotiated settlement, and regret that the Communists appear to have rejected them without exploring their possibilities. We have always believed in the desirability of a negotiated settlement, either through a Geneva-style conference or in some other way.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that since these are reasonable proposals, it is high time that Hanoi should enter into serious negotiations?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Hanoi's reactions so far have been negative, and no progress towards a settlement can be made until the Communist side is ready to participate in serious negotiations. This could take place in the first instance in the context of the Paris peace talks if the North Vietnamese so wished.

Did the Foreign Secretary make any progress in his discussions with Mr. Kosygin about the reconvening of the 1954 Agreement in the light of these American proposals?

My right hon. Friend discussed the subject with Mr. Gromyko when he was here recently and Her Majesty's Government, like the previous Government, have on a number of occasions urged the Soviet co-Chairman to join in convening a Geneva-style conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consultations he has had with Commonwealth Governments in South-East Asia, Australia and New Zealand with regard to the retention of a British military presence in Singapore and Malaysia after the end of 1971.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence on 28th October. We continue to consult closely with our Commonwealth partners.—[Vol. 805, c. 223–6.]

Is my right hon. Friend yet able to say when he expects the next Ministerial meeting of the Powers concerned to take place and how soon he hopes to have an agreement finalised?

I think that there will be an official meeting in December, and as soon after that as is practicable, and as soon as such a meeting will lead to results, Ministers can meet.

In view of the Prime Minister's rather Delphic answer to me on Thursday and in view of the outright denial by the Minister of State for Defence, equally on Thursday, can the Foreign Secretary comment on Mr. Ross Mark's allegations from Washington in yesterday's Sunday Express that the British and Americans are going ahead with a staging post to the Far East in the Indian Ocean at Diego Garcia?

I should like the hon. Member to put that Question down.

How does the Foreign Secretary propose to reconcile the commitment of Malaysia and Singapore to a foreign policy of non-alignment with the commitment of Australia and New Zealand to military alliance with the United States? How will this be accommodated in the new arrangement? Secondly, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the five naval frigates which are the only naval contribution to the combined force are the five frigates which are carrying out the patrol off Beira?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants that information, he must ask a Question of the Secretary of State for Defence. No doubt we shall announce the political arrangements which ought to govern the defence agreement among the five Commonwealth countries. The political definition has been given, and it should be announced before very long.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention of Rudolf Hess.

An approach suggesting the release of Rudolf Hess was made by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow on 23rd February to the Soviet Government on behalf of the Three Powers. It was unsuccessful. Since then, however, the Russians have agreed to certain improvements in Hess's conditions of imprisonment. We shall of course continue to watch for an appropriate moment to raise once again with the Russians the question of Hess's imprisonment.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. As it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that this man should be released on compassionate grounds, will my right hon. and learned Friend initiate new high-level talks with the French and American Governments with a view to a new approach to the Russians at Ministerial level?

The answer to the first question is, "Yes, Sir". As for the second, we shall continue to search for a suitable moment to raise this matter again. If I may say so, I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. There is certainly no man in the House or outside who has a better claim to press this matter.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman stress to the Soviet Union that those who suffered most at the hands of the Nazis would expect a higher degree of humanitarian conduct, and that to keep this man incarcerated indefinitely when he is half-crazed and no danger to anybody at this stage is an act which no one in the House can possibly support?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, mandatory or otherwise, which the United Kingdom has accepted as binding.

In general, Her Majesty's Government has accepted as binding decisions of a mandatory character taken by the Security Council in accordance with Chapter VII of the Charter.

As Her Majesty's Government did not oppose the Security Council resolution about arms to South Africa and as since that time the Government appear to have had second thoughts in the matter, may we assume that the Government will act in the light of that resolution?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss a particular resolution, I should be grateful if he would ask a Question about it.

As the hon. Gentleman has reverted to the South African issue, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us believe that the maintenance of the Commonwealth, particularly in Africa north of the Zambesi, will be just as important to Britain's long-term interest as the strengthening of strategic arrangements in the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic Ocean?

These, as are the other issues involved, are matters which are exercising the Government's mind. That is why consultations are still continuing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations the harassment and imprisonment of writers and civil rights supporters in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.