asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now take steps to improve the effectiveness of international sanctions against Rhodesia

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take at the United Nations concerning the strengthening of sanctions against the illegal Rhodesian régime following the publication of the Pearce Report

Her Majesty's Government are already taking every step open to them to make existing sanctions effective by strict enforcement within Britain and by reporting suspected breaches to the Security Council, the body which has the primary responsibility for this matter. Sanctions evasion, however, is still widespread. There is no need for new machinery: what is required is a stricter enforcement by the international community of existing measures.

Has the Foreign Secretary made any direct representations to the United States and other sanctions breakers among our allies, and what steps is he taking to strengthen the blockade on the ports which are supplying raw materials to Rhodesia?

The United States Administration itself brought the breach of sanctions in respect of chrome to the notice of the United Nations and therefore there was no need for action by us. The breach of sanctions in relation to chrome was an act not of the United States Administration, which tried to stop it, but of Congress, which repeated its decision. The obligation laid on us by the United Nations in respect of the control of ports relates solely to the importation of oil through Beira.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and other Opposition Members think it better that the United States should buy chrome from Communist sources rather than from Rhodesia?

That is a matter for the United States Government and not for me.

:The Foreign Secretary will know that in his comments on the Pearce Report Mr. Smith said that sanctions had become much less effective since the proposed settlement with the United Kingdom last November. Does the Foreign Secretary share the view that sanctions have weakened within the last six months? If he takes that view, will he tell the House what he will do about it?

This must be admitted because exports from Rhodesia have recovered to 97 per cent. of what they were before sanctions were imposed; so sanctions are having some effect. A lot of exports are going to countries which are members of the United Nations and which are supposed to be supporting sanctions. That is beyond dispute. We have made 170 recommendations that breaches of sanctions should be looked into and in only four cases have prosecutions been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia regarding the response of Her Majesty's Government to the report of the Pearce Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on discussions he has had with the Rhodesian Government subsequent to the publication of the Pearce Report

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Rugby (Mr. William Price) and West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 5th June.—[Vol. 838, c. 18.]

When the Foreign Secretary next communicates with the Smith régime will he say that there can be no further negotiations on a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia without the presence of the Africans in Rhodesia at the conference table, since by their reaction to the Pearce Commission they have clearly indicated that they have no confidence in the Smith régime to act as broker on their behalf?

We shall be debating this matter on Thursday in greater detail, so I shall give only a short answer now. The next step must come from Rhodesia and it would be very much better if it was multi-racial.

Is my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary aware that he is in great danger of emulating Lord North, who took seven years to recognise the rebellious American colonies? As both the British and Rhodesian Governments have now reached agreement, even though unfortunately this has been overthrown, would is not be better to maintain representatives in each other's capitals?

:I am concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friend must be, that there should be a quiet time for reflection by all races in Rhodesia. As to the next stage of any negotiations there may be, I do not think representation of the Rhodesian Government in London would contribute at this moment to that quiet reflection.

This is an extraordinarily long-winded affair. Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he reported to the House on the Pearce Commission's activities he said that some African people were rather prone to accept a formula which would mean gradual unimpeded progress towards majority rule but that they did not trust the Smith régime to carry it through? Can he say whether at any time during his period as Foreign Secretary, and, as far as he knows, during the period of the Labour Government, the possibility of placing a British garrison in Rhodesia, to ensure that such terms are carried out, was ever mooted?

No, Sir. I do not think that policy would be favoured by either side of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Commonwealth leaders on joint Commonwealth policy towards Rhodesia following publication of the Pearce Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with African Commonwealth countries since the publication of the Pearce Report; and whether he will make a statement.

I have had no discussions about a joint Commonwealth policy but Commonwealth Governments have been kept informed of all important developments over Rhodesia. We have received communications from some of them.

Would the Foreign Secretary agree that many Commonwealth countries are unlikely to be impressed by professions of good faith on our part towards the sanctions policy or by pacifist reports to the United Nations concerning sanctions breaking by others, and that what it really wants from us is a determined willingness on our part to make the strongest possible representations to Portugal and South Africa and others who, we know, are breaking sanctions? Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House what representations he has made to Portugal and South Africa in this respect?

Representations to Portugal and South Africa would not be much good because they have opted out, deliberately, of the sanctions policy. There are many other countries, however, which are breaking sanctions. I do not think it is a good thing to name them—[Hon. Members: "Why not?"]—because sometimes it is a shipping company which has nothing to do with the country concerned, sometimes it is an industrial company over which its Government have no control and sometimes, as in the case of American chrome, the Administration are trying to do one thing and their Parliament has rejected it. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can point his finger to us. We have done everything required of us under the sanctions legislation which provides all the powers which the Security Council wants, and it is for the Secretary-General and the Security Council to enforce it.

In view of the fact that Britain has in the Continent of Africa far greater political and commercial interests than the resumption of trade with Rhodesia, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will strive very hard to keep in harmony with the advice he may receive from our Commonwealth friends?

:Yes, certainly, we will keep in very close touch with our Commonwealth friends. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, for example, was in Nigeria at the time I announced our decision over the Pearce Report. I think those conversations will help greatly.

:Will the right hon. Gentleman recall that when he announced the Pearce Commission he was kind enough to take note of an early day Motion of mine concerning the Land Tenure Act and the Epworth mission land settlement? Will he keep Commonwealth Governments and us here informed of any further embarkation upon the operation of the Land Tenure Act against the Methodist mission at Epworth?

Yes. As I shall say on Thursday—without anticipating too much of my speech—one of my anxieties is that these problems which we were able to settle with Mr. Smith in November will be wide open if this settlement is not accepted.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what communications he has had with the Rhodesian Prime Minister—

There is no such animal—

concerning the Wankie Colliery disaster in which 431 miners lost their lives, and to what extent this country is offering aid and assistance to the bereaved?

:I think the whole House will have been horrified at that disaster and will wish to express its sympathy with the relatives who have suffered so much. I asked Mr. Smith whether a relief fund was being set up in Rhodesia. He tells me it is, and the Government here have decided to contribute £25,000.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether countries are now applying and enforcing full sanctions against Rhodesia.

:The great majority of United Nations members have informed the Security Council that they are complying with the relevant Security Council resolutions. It is for the Security Council to determine how fully they are doing so.

:Surely the short answer is only Britain and the United States, but selectively. Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who have never supported sanctions are not likely to start now, remembering that the Prime Minister said in 1968 that the only purpose of sanctions was to bring about a negotiation?

I well remember the vote on the mandatory sanctions in which this party disagreed with the Government of the day. These sanctions were passed. They will operate unless we get a settlement from Rhodesia or unless at some future time we decide that in the operation of the sanctions we have to ask for a different system.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance about the steps he is taking to ensure that the aid which he announced in answer to an earlier supplementary question to the miners and their relatives affected by the Wankie disaster will be allocated fairly as between white and black vicitims?

I think that on the whole the hon. Gentleman will wish he had not asked that question.

Have you been down a mine in Rhodesia?

I have been down more mines than you.

There were 400 Africans killed and 30 Europeans killed. They are all dead and all their families, black or white, are suffering. This £25,000 will go to the families who have suffered, whether black or white.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following the ratification of the treaties in Bonn, whether he will now make an initiative towards an early convening of the East-West security conference; and in particular if he will press for it to be held in 1972 rather than in 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the last month towards the convening of a European security conference.

At the meeting of the Ministerial Council of NATO in Bonn on 30th and 31st May, it was agreed that in the light of the progress that had been made over the ratification of the Federal German treaties with the Soviet Union and Poland, the inner-German agreements and the Quadripartite Agreement on Berlin, it would be right to enter into multilateral talks to prepare for a conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

Yes, but is that good enough? Now that the treaties have been ratified, what reason is there for further delay? Could not the preparatory conference to which the right hon. Gentleman referred be followed by the conference proper this autumn? Is he aware that in many countries we are regarded as dragging our feet and that it seems very foolish, particularly as our country could benefit enormously from mutual balanced force reductions, by devoting the resources to things we need at home and to saving our balance of payments?

We are certainly not dragging our feet and never have been, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that certain practical things happen this autumn. One is the American elections. Although there might be multilateral discussions about procedures before the American elections, I do not believe that the political talks and preparation will take place before they are over; but I expect the conference will take place next spring.

The right hon. Gentleman's first answer gives some of us at any rate a certain amount of gratification, so far as it goes. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the international situation is now much less frigid as a result of the agreements reached between Mr. Nixon and the Soviet Government and that the time is therefore propitious for such a conference? Will he give an assurance that serious consideration will be given to allowing the East German Government to take part in such a conference because, however odious they are they are a fact?

The situation is more flexible and more propitious. We are perfectly prepared to take advantage of this. I am not so much concerned with the preparation for the European security conference as with the machinery which may be set up afterwards to identify certain ways in which Russia and the East may find more constructive co-existence than has been possible up to now. Therefore, I think the preparation stage will be comparatively easy and I should like to pursue it in the next few months in a practical way.

I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about the preparatory stage being comparatively easy. Will he give an assurance that he will consult the EEC countries and the other three applicants to join so that a truly European view can be put forward at the conference, representing as it will do the most important aspect of European life?

:Yes, Sir. The advantage of the conference will be that for the first time countries of Eastern Europe will be on the platform with the countries of Western Europe—in other words, the Warsaw Pact and NATO together, diluted by the unaligned countries like Austria and Finland. This could be the beginning of better things.

:There is a general understanding that this conference of all conferences must be very carefully prepared if it is not to fail and in failing create a new catastrophe. There is a second stage during which the machinery the Foreign Secretary mentioned, which should include the question of membership of the conference proper, will have to be considered. In view of the obvious détente which has come about since the Moscow and Berlin agreements, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will press with all due speed for the convening of the conference itself in 1973?

I believe there is no question about the conference being in 1973, and pretty early in 1973. I agree that it should be carefully prepared, but not so carefully prepared that we get stuck in the preparation. That is why I said that I attach more importance to the things that happen after the conference rather than before.

Is not the tremendous advance in the past six months the fact that Russia has, not for the first time in her history, admitted both for herself and her satellites that she is a European Power?

I think this is the hope for the future, that Russia is in reality a European Power. But the history of the past 20 years since the war shows that many of her policies have been directed against Western Europe, so we must keep up our guard while we negotiate. It is a very difficult exercise but one which we are ready to undertake.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now able to state the results of his discussions with the Japanese Government about the exceptions made by the latter to its scheme of generalised preferences in relation to Hong Kong.

I have seen the Japanese Ambassador and handed over to the Japanese Government an aide-memoire expressing our disappointment at the treatment of Hong Kong in the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme and asking the Japanese Government to reconsider the position. Our concern was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he met Japanese Ministers at the beginning of this month. The Japanese Government have undertaken to examine our request.

I welcome my hon. Friend's reply, but is not the attitude of the Japanese Government towards Hong Kong rather puzzling, as Hong Kong buys more from Japan than any other country and as the Japanese benefit from the Hong Kong Government's policy of an open door for foreign investment and for public tendering? Can my hon. Friend explain why the Japanese Government appear to be discriminating against Hong Kong in favour of its close competitors?

:We are concerned about the matter. Hong Kong very much wishes to avoid discrimination which might operate in favour of its competitors. Of the 96 items on the exceptions list, 37 are not exported from Hong Kong to Japan, eight are not made in Hong Kong at all and Hong Kong calculates that of the remaining 59 only 13 are of any real significance to it, representing more than half of Hong Kong's exports to Japan. Of the exceptions, there are certain products of which Hong Kong's competitors, which are not subject to any exceptions list, are the main exporters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules governing the use by a married woman of a joint husband and wife passport.

Under an international agreement, which was reviewed in 1963, a wife cannot travel on a family passport without her husband.

Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that that ruling is both outdated and unfair. Many women nowadays are able to travel abroad, and especially if they have young children they like to take them on day trips to the Continent. When they have valid passports, why is it that they are not allowed to use them but are forced into the inconvenience and considerable expense of getting additional passports? As the matter was last reviewed in 1963, will the hon. Gentleman look at it again with some urgency?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's viewpoint but we are cramped by international agreement. Although it is a long-standing practice, the family passport has distinct disadvantages in that families often take up residence abroad on a family passport and are in difficulties if they have to travel separately in an emergency. It is really for family holiday purposes and I would not recommend it for any other use.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the reform of this matter was advocated in a Conservative Party pamphlet, accepted at the party conference by the then Shadow Cabinet and prepared by the present Solicitor-General? Could we have a rather more satisfactory answer?

I have noted the very powerful argument which my hon. Friend has put forward. In spite of what I have said before, in view of her comments and those of the hon. Member for Wands-worth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox), I am prepared to look into the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had, both in the United Kingdom and in the countries of Latin America, to the British Government's Seminar on Britain and Latin America.

The response from British businessmen has been very encouraging. The seminar attracted much attention in Latin America and a number of Latin American Governments have said that they wish to study the record of its discussions. Action is being taken to follow up these responses. The London Chamber of Commerce and Industry has agreed to mount a seminar on Brazil in the autumn.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the key to the ultimate success of this important conference will be the sustained building up of links with South America by the British Government and British industry? Will he continue to urge British industry to take successful follow-up action?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course it is very important to get effective follow-up action, and that is what we are seeking. I am encouraged by the number of people and Governments who have asked specifically for a full record of the conference, which we are providing, and there are specific points, apart from those contained in the set speeches, in questions and answers which will help us to understand one another and, we hope, draw us closer together.

Was there any successful outcome of the discussions between the Foreign Office and the Chilean Foreign Minister last week? Is there likely to be an increase in trade with Chile and possibly additional credits to assist the Chilean Government, despite their political complexion, of which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not necessarily approve?

I do not think we would allow internal political views to affect our judgment in this. We take the view that it is right that we should have the friendliest relations with Chile. We had very useful discussions with the Chilean Foreign Minister. The question of debt and credits is very complicated. There have been discussions about multilateral problems with Chile at the Paris meetings in March and April. We are now engaged in bilateral negotiations with Chile and are seeking to find the best possible method of an expansion of trade which we want to see.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers about the United States of America's blockade of North Vietnam, in the context of his policy of co-ordinating British foreign policies with those of the Six.

Discussions with Ministers from European Economic Com- munity countries must remain confidential.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us at least whether any of the Six support the United States action in Vietnam, and if so—which one suspects is the case—is not this a poor look-out for the development of a joint foreign policy in the enlarged Community which, on the basis of fact, is likely to be as reactionary as that of the present British Government?

The attitude of other countries to events in other parts of the world is the responsibility of the Governments of those countries and not ours.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the United States Government following the mining of the Vietnamese waters in South-East Asia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the United States Government concerning events in Vietnam

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the Government of the United States of America and South Vietnam about events in Vietnam.

We are in regular contact with the United States Government and the Government of the Republic of Vietnam on the situation in Indo-China, though these exchanges are confidential.

:During those exchanges did the Minister express, for instance, the deep concern in this country about the continuation of this war, and in particular the decision taken by the British Labour Party completely opposing the mining of Vietnamese waters? Many of us have recently seen on the television pictures of the children covered with napalm. Surely something should be done to end this war. In this regard, what response are the British Government making?

We have not made any protest to the American Government about the mining of North Vietnamese ports, given the state of hostilities in the area. This response by the American Government is a measured response, in our view, to North Vietnam's invasion of the South. The Americans want a negotiated settlement, and President Nixon put forward fresh proposals for this when he announced his proposals to close the ports of North Vietnam. While the North Vietnamese refuse to negotiate, however, it is understandable that the Americans should take military action in support of their ally, to counter that taken by the other side.

Despite the concern which many people in this country continue to feel about the tragedies of the war in Vietnam, will my hon. Friend do all he can to reassure the Government and people of the United States that the bulk of people in this country appreciate their efforts to help a small nation to defend itself from aggression?

Nonsense.

I have indicated the Government's view. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 15th May we regard the proposals put forward by President Nixon as positive and constructive. We hope that the North Vietnamese will show their desire for peace by a suitable response. If these proposals were accepted, there could be a rapid withdrawal of United States troops from Vietnam.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that robust reply may I ask him whether he can tell the House what we are doing to assist the refugees who have been turned out of their homes by the Communist offensive? Surely the £10,000 extra which we have so far offered to those trying to cope with this disaster is really inadequate. Cannot we get medical teams out there?

:The £10,000 which we gave was well received by the South Vietnamese Government. That really was intended only to meet immediate and urgent needs. As such it was gratefully received. In addition, private United Kingdom charitable organisations are playing a considerable rôlein aid to refugees. The Save the Children Fund has so far given £40,000 and Oxfam £33,000 since the current offensive began.

if this is the posture of the British Government can they be exactly surprised that the Russians will have nothing to do with them as Co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, although he knows me well, has misunderstood my posture and that of the Government.

It is only too clear.

:The Government remain ready to help promote a peaceful settlement in Vietnam in any way that may be open to us But to be effective any initiative by this Government would have to be acceptable to all the parties involved in the conflict. Unfortunately the recent North Vietnamese invasion makes it clear that they still wish to try to impose their will on the South Vietnamese by force. That is the difficulty we face.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the difference between the Co-Chairmen is that one supplies 75 per cent, of the offensive armaments of a country which is hell-bent on aggression against its neighbour whereas we use all our good offices for peace?

I do not disagree with that remark.

:Is it not totally clear that any possibility of reconvening the Geneva Conference has long since gone? Is it not also quite clear that the United States Government is bent on a process of extraction from Vietnam and is it not rather squalid that the best warriors in Vietnam at the moment seem to be, not from the United States of America, but on the back benches opposite?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman in his comments about the American troop withdrawals from Vietnam. The British Government's aim is to encourage some peace machinery to be set up. We do not mind what the peace machinery is and that is why we have been pursuing and trying to find out whether it is possible to set up the Geneva Conference or a Geneva-type conference. If that is not possible, we will help and we will pursue in consultation with other countries any other possible methods of bringing this dreadful war to an end.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates since June, 1970, on which an official request has been sent to the Russian Government to reconvene the Geneva Conference.

Since June, 1970, there have been five occasions on which we have asked the Russians to consider reconvening the Geneva Conference. I will, with permission, circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the Foreign Office seize the opportunity to take advantage of the slight pause in the situation to take further initiatives beyond those which have already been taken? Is the Minister aware that people in this country feel that we are on a kind of Foreign Office bureaucratic treadmill which takes the form of one step forward and one step backward, just like dancing the quadrille? We want to see no let-up on any possible new initiative of any kind, together with the Russian Co-Chairman, to stop this tragedy.

I share very much the tone of the hon. Gentleman's question and we are certainly trying as hard as we can in all areas to try to bring the sides together. We are in a position to do this since, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, we are Co-Chairmen of the Geneva Conference and, as I have indicated in my reply, we have been taking up this matter on many occasions in the past few weeks. I was in Peking last week, as the House knows, and so far the Chinese have not been receptive to the idea of reconvening the Geneva Conference. We have made no proposals to the North Vietnamese with whom we have no diplomatic relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards resolving the fisheries dispute with Iceland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the continuing discussions with Iceland upon its territorial fishing limits; and when the Icelandic Foreign Minister is returning to London for renewed talks.

As I told the House in reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 26th May, discussions were held with Icelandic Ministers on 24th-25th May concerning an interim arrangement for British fishing off Iceland after 1st September. These discussions are to continue on 19th-20th June in London. The fundamental issue of the legality of the Icelandic extension of fisheries jurisdiction has been referred to the International Court of Justice, but no pleadings have yet been filed.—[Vol. 837, c. 522–3.]

:If the Icelandic Government are so confident that their claim is justifiable, why will they not wait until the international Law of the Sea conference next year and put forward their view there, since the conference has been formed for the purpose of allowing equitable distribution of sea resources between countries? Or do they know that their claim is bogus?

The conference, planned for 1973, will in our view be the natural forum for the discussion of questions of jurisdiction over the high seas, including fisheries. We are keeping our wider interests in that conference in mind in our attitude towards this dispute, but I cannot answer for the views of the Icelandic Government and it is not for me to do so.

Following the talks last month, does the hon. Gentleman feel able to confirm that both sides will enter the talks this coming month with a genuine desire for a genuine settlement to avoid a confrontation on 1st September? With this in mind, will the hon. Gentleman constantly bear in mind that all sections of our industry from top to bottom want him to say two things? The first is that we do not accept the domestic jurisdiction of Iceland up to a 50-mile limit. The second is that we must have our men and boats looked after in the event of anything happening after 1st September.

:I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made plain the views of those who are interested. Various propositions have been put forward for the continuance of fishing between 12 and 50 miles off Iceland from 1st September until the dispute is resolved. I cannot go into the details but they would involve some restrictions on the scale of British fishing in those waters without prejudice to the views of either side on the legality of the Icelandic extension to 50 miles. As I said on 6th March, I cannot say that we should in no circumstances resort to naval protection for our fishing vessels.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the case submitted to the International Court of Justice regarding the fishing limits dispute with Iceland.

On14th April we filed with the International Court an application asking the court to declare that Iceland's claim to extend fisheries jurisdiction to 50 miles was without foundation in international law and was therefore invalid; and that matters of this kind should be regulated by international, not unilateral, arrangements.

Can my hon. Friend say when he expects the court to hear this case and, in the event of British fishing being interrupted on the high seas, whether it will be possible to obtain an injunction from that court?

I cannot yet give my hon. Friend the exact date. We shall in due course file a memorial which will set out our case in detail. The time limit for filing has yet to be determined by the court. After filing the memorial and any subsequent written pleading the court may require, there will no doubt be oral argument at The Hague.

:Can my hon. Friend say what will happen in September if the court decides that the Icelandic action is illegal and Iceland refuses to accept that? Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that our fishermen will be adequately protected in what will obviously be a very difficult and dangerous situation?

As to the assurance asked for in the latter part of that supplementary question, I indicated the Government's view on this in answer to an earlier Question. As for default, the statute of the court provides procedure whereby the court may hear the case in default of appearance of one of the parties to the dispute. We propose to invoke the procedure.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that of the countries of the North East Atlantic fisheries conference, any one of the 14 others besides ourselves would support the case we would take to the court?

I believe that is correct.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the light of the statement made by the Iceland Government about possible action in the autumn, Her Majesty's Government would consider going to the court to seek interim measures of protection?

I think we must see how things proceed. We have had the negotiations in London recently and more negotiations will take place later this month. I think it would be wiser for hon. Members, on both sides, to wait to see how matters proceed over the next few weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters now remain to be negotiated prior to possible entry into the Common Market on 1st January, 1973.

The pre-entry negotiations with the European Communities were completed in January and the agreements reached recorded in the instruments relating to United Kingdom accession to the Communities.

Of course I was aware of that, but surely there is a great number of outstanding matters. Would my right hon. Friend agree that they include such things as the reform of the common agricultural policy, political institutions, regional policy, transport and lorries—all matters which should be settled on behalf of the British people before we agree to go in? Will my right hon. Friend therefore kindly refer to his Cabinet colleagues and suggest that the Third Reading of the European Communities Bill should not take place until Britain is satisfied about these matters?

That would be a difficult request for me to say "Yes" to. The matters my hon. Friend has raised are matters we can discuss with great advantage when we are inside the Community—regional policy, for example. We are discussing in Brussels matters of immense importance like industrial policy, regional policy and progress towards monetary union not only in the Commission but with the Ministers, who meet from time to time. These subjects are definitely covered at the present time.

One of the remaining outstanding matters for negotiation in this House is the nature and composition of British representation in the European Parliament. How soon does the right hon. Gentleman think we will be able to have satisfaction about this?

Personally, I think we would like to have experience of the European Parliament before we make up our minds how best it should be dealt with.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) mentioned about a dozen items still outstanding, the Foreign Secretary mentioned about another 15 and there are hundreds of others. How can the Government get the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people if even the Government do not know what we are negotiating or agreed upon? How can the Government get the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people on this issue?

In response to the hon. Member, I can think of a number of very important questions we should be discussing between now and the summit meeting in October. Apart from the ones I have mentioned, such as progress towards a monetary union for Europe, there is industrial policy—because it has all been agriculture up to now. Again, I can think of examining the attitude of the Community towards the Third World. I think these can be defined very well at the summit meeting in October and signposts given for the direction in which the Community should proceed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting of Ministers of the European Economic Community and applicant countries at Luxembourg on 26th May, in particular on the consideration that was given to methods of decision-making within the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give the view of the British Government on the matters raised at his meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the Ten in Luxembourg on 27th May.

The content of these discussions must remain confidential.

:Would my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may be in controversy about the Community there is virtually unanimous agreement in thinking circles, both in the countries of the Community and the applicant countries, as to the inadequacy of the democratic aspect of decision-making? In view of current interest in the question as evidenced by the Vedal report and others, can he say what Her Majesty's Government propose to contribute to the thinking on this question both in regard to the national Parliament and the European Parliament?

As I indicated earlier in relation to the working of the European Parliament, I believe that most of the House would agree that if we have a bureaucratic institution there must be a political institution to control it. As to the degree to which the powers of the European Parliament are increased or how best this Parliament can contribute to the European Parliament, as I have said I think it would be prudent to have experience of the working of that Parliament before making up our minds how we can best fulfil our functions.

In his original reply the Foreign Secretary mentioned confidentiality. Are not the Government treating the House with even more contempt than they usually show on Common Market questions? There are inspired leaks before, during and after the discussions, so that we can read in the Press what happens at the discussions, but we are not told the facts by the Government. Does not the Foreign Secretary think that he should treat the House with respect and tell us what is happening rather than leave us to get information from Press reports?

Government pronouncements deal with facts that can be confirmed; leaks deal with rumours that cannot.

:Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the Ministers of the Six in the Council of Ministers have agreed together that their deliberations will not be confidential in respect of what they tell their own national Parliaments? Will he therefore reconsider his reply? On the substance of the matter, will he kindly take the opportunity at an early date, if he has not already done so, to raise with the members of the Six, or the Ten as it now is, the question of the pollution of the atmosphere caused by French nuclear testing in the South Pacific?

:The right hon. Gentleman has travelled an unusually long way from the original Question. I do not think the House has any reason to complain about ministerial statements of facts. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster comes back regularly and reports to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common- wealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Russian authorities concerning the harassment, arrest and conscription of Russian Jewish scientists before and during President Nixon's visit to Moscow.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make renewed representations to the Russian authorities concerning the latest restrictions imposed on those Jewish citizens who have applied for visas to go to Israel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make further representations to the Russian authorities about the recent treatment of certain citizens of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

While appreciating the concern which prompted these Questions Her Majesty's Government have no standing to make formal representations to the Soviet Government about the treatment of Soviet citizens. The views of Her Majesty's Government on this general question are, however, already known to the Soviet Government.

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the deep sense of outrage felt among scientists in this country at the harassment and persecution of their colleagues in the Soviet Union? Will he consider some way of giving public voice to this concern through our representatives at the United Nations or UNESCO or one of the other specialised agencies?

We do recognise this problem and we have on many occasions made clear our views about this kind of treatment. It has been done by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and by the Permanent Under-Secretary as well as myself. Our representatives at the last session of the Human Rights Commission appealed to all Governments to ensure that their policies with regard to the movement of subjects were in accord with Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Our position on this is absolutely clear and we are very much against action of this kind. However, this is a matter within the responsibility of the Soviet Government. We can make our views Known but beyond that we cannot go.

:I am sure that all hon. Members are grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. Would he agree that the way in which the Soviet authorities acted in banning the prayer book, signed by Members of this House, which was recently sent for the little Jewish boy showed them in an extremely bad light? Has he any further information about the whereabouts of that book, because we understood that the Russians were to return it but as yet it has not turned up?

:I would not dissent from the opinion expressed by my hon. Friend in the first part of his question but there are Questions on this subject down for answer later and I must reserve my answer until then.

:Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by many in my constituency, particularly Councillor Leslie Donn of Whitefield, about the harassment of the Korenfeld family who live in district E37 of Moscow? Can he make representations to the Soviet Government as there has been interruption of postal and telephone communications between my constituents and that family?

:If my hon. Friend would like to send me the details of any case I am always willing to look at them, but I must remind him of the point I made earlier that we cannot intervene in the cases of individual citizens of the Soviet Union. I will be glad to look at any particular case to see whether there is any way in which we can help. I have to remind the House that we have stated our position absolutely clearly and have done so again recently in the Commission on Human Rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit to China by the Undersecretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his preparations for the Under-Secretary's visit to China.

As the House will be aware, my visit was the first to the People's Republic of China by a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I was received with great courtesy and hospitality. My talks with the Chinese Foreign Minister, the Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Vice Minister of Foreign Trade lasted for more than 14 hours. They were conducted in a remarkably frank and friendly way and covered a wide range of subjects. These concerned both our bilateral relations and problems of mutual interest in the field of international affairs. The details must remain confidential. We reached agreement that a framework now exists for the gradual but steady development of exchanges in industrial, scientific and technological experience, trade and sport.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his successful visit and ask him what proposals there are for further visits, in particular for visits to this country by Chinese Ministers, which would be very welcome?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has accepted an invitation from the Chinese Foreign Minister, Chi Peng-Fei, to visit China in the autumn. The Foreign Minister expressed to me his pleasure at the prospect of receiving my right hon. Friend in Peking. The Foreign Minister, the Minister of Foreign Trade and Mr. Ch'iao Kuan-Hua, the senior Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs, have all accepted invitations to visit this country. The dates remain to be determined. I have also discussed the possibility of a visit to China by a parliamentary delegation.

When discussing Vietnam in the Great Hall of the People did the Under-Secretary give his Chinese hosts the same spiel that he has given us? If so, what did they say? If not, what view did he express?

I did not discuss Vietnam in the Great Hall of the People. The hon. Gentleman may not have been aware that the invitation from the Chinese Government for me to visit China came after the statement that I made in the House of British Government policy over the recent events in Vietnam and after the statements made in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the subject of Vietnam.

:In view of the obvious success of this visit, is there any prospect of an easing of the visa situation with regard to the close relatives of certain British subjects who are not allowed out of China?

:I raised with the Chinese the question of three British subjects who are still detained in China and the two British residents in Shanghai who require exit visas. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that I was informed before I left Shanghai that exit visas have now been allowed to Ian Chang and the adopted daughter of Mr. Edmonds.

May I say how glad we are that the Under-Secretary of State has been able to complete this important mission? Will his visit be followed by a visit of his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at a fairly early date? The hon. Gentleman mentioned the improvement of communications with China. Will he tell us something about communications between China and Hong Kong, particularly telephonic communications, and between Hong Kong and the West?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, which I greatly appreciate. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be visiting China at the end of October or early in November and the Chinese Government are very much looking forward to his visit. The subject of communications was discussed amongst others connected with Hong Kong. We made it plain that we wished to conclude an air services agreement with China, and we hope that negotiations will begin soon. Agreement on detailed arrangements will have to await the conclusion of an air services agreement. As a result of our discussions, I have the greatest confidence in the future of Hong Kong.

Will my hon. Friend say something about the prospects for the sale to China of British aircraft, particularly Concorde?

The civil aviation authority of China already operates Viscounts and Tridents and more Tridents are on order. I described the range of aircraft that the British aircraft industry is now in a position to offer. This gives China an extensive choice from which to replace and add to her fleet. I can tell my hon. Friend that the Chinese expressed considerable and continued interest in Concorde.

Is there a prospect of an extension of consular relations to advance the objectives which were mutually agreed?

No; we have now closed the consulate in Shanghai and there is no question of reopening the consular establishment in that city. We think that the present balance of arrangements whereby we have an Ambassador in Peking and the Chinese Ambassador will be arriving early in July to take up his post in London is about right.

Further to my hon. Friend's answer to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), he gave welcome news with regard to exit visas for people in Shanghai but did he have an equally encouraging response in the case of the people who are detained?

I mentioned them to the Chinese and they took note. I had no further news by the time I left China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the current whereabouts of Mr. Anil Clerk in the light of his representations to the Uganda Government.

The Ugandan Ministry of Foreign Affairs has confirmed that investigations are continuing and that the High Commission will be informed as soon as any information is received. When he saw President Amin on 27th May our High Commissioner expressed deep concern. He was assured by the President that everything possible was being done.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. Will he confirm that Mr. Clerk is a British passport-holder, and can he tell us the whereabouts of his immediate family? Will he accept and convey to the Ugandan Government the fact that Mr. Clerk is held in high regard in this country?

:Yes, I understand that he is a British passport-holder, and so far as one can tell his family are in no danger. Investigations are still continuing with regard to Mr. Clerk's abduction, which is much to be deplored.