asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the issue of relationships between the EEC, the United Kingdom and the United States of America at the next meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place in the Council of Ministers about the American proposals of an Atlantic Community contained in Dr. Kissinger's speech of 23rd April 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects there to be a community response to the United States proposals for an Atlantic Community.

The meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine on 5th June discussed the question of relations between the member States of the European Community and the United States. There was general agreement that the Nine ought to harmonise their policies on this essential question. A statement was issued at the end of the discussion, the text of which is available in the Library. The Foreign Ministers will take up the discussion again in July.

Will the Government be able to express their views to the House of Commons before a Common Market policy is finally formulated on this issue, or does our Common Market membership preclude Her Majesty's Government from expressing independent views in this field in advance of a joint Common Market policy?

We could express our views, if we thought it appropriate, at any time. Of course, these matters will be dealt with in different form—finance in the Committee of 20 and trade in the GATT negotiations. Therefore, many policies have to be co-ordinated. I see no restraint on the Government's making a statement.

But does my right hon. Friend himself think that it would be a very good idea if this Parliament did that? Secondly, does he not agree that the talks on this subject should be multilateral and not bilateral, which, I think, is what the French urged upon President Nixon in the Iceland meeting the other day?

There are bound to be bilateral discussions with the United States all the time. As I said, the Foreign Ministers are trying to design a plan which we can put to the United States for an approach to international finance and an approach to GATT. The appropriate time for a debate in this House on this matter might be after the July meeting.

But if there is no constraint on the Government's telling us what their policy is—which I welcome—may we now know what it is?

Yes, Sir. The Government's policy is to agree a sensible approach to the United States in preparation for the GATT talks. There is no reason to suppose that we shall not obtain this when we have further discussions in the Community.

With regard to the trading features of these proposals, do the British Government fully respond to the American proposals for nil tariffs on industrial trade?

I cannot go into details on this point, but a good deal of theology that has bedevilled this question for a long time is now going out of the window. There will be practical arrangements, which will mean that Europe and the United States will approach the negotiations with a reasonably identified point of view.

The Foreign Secretary will surely recognise that the objective of a tariff-free area between North America and Western Europe is hardly a matter of theology; it is a major objective for British trade policy and, indeed, for the trade policies of the whole developed world. Surely, he can at least tell us whether it is among the Government's objectives, which they are pressing within the Council of Ministers, in negotiations later this year with the United States and with others concerned. Will lie also confirm, in this same context, whether the CAP and the major agricultural commodities covered by it will also be included in those negotiations?

The approaches to the GATT negotiations are the most important thing here. America has its tariff system and Europe its external tariff. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about an eventual free trade area between the two, my answer would be that one step is enough for me. Therefore, we go on talking in the Community and trying to keep a sensible approach to the GATT negotiations, which is the important thing. As for the common agricultural policy, we have made it clear that the structure of that is accepted—when in office, right hon. Gentlemen opposite said the same—but that does not mean that the policy cannot be varied.

What are the prospects of the Foreign Ministers of the Nine meeting as a Council of Ministers of the EEC, with the power and responsibility to evolve a common EEC foreign policy, as distinct from meeting, as they do, as the Council of Nine Foreign Ministers but not with their EEC corporate status?

When the Foreign Ministers meet in the Council they are limited, of course, by the Treaty of Rome. When they meet in a political capacity, that is done under what is called the Davignon machinery.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent communication with the Smith régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he now proposes to re-open negotiations on all outstanding matters, including sanctions, with Mr. Ian Smith.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about Anglo-Rhodesian relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia since 25th May 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of negotiations with the Rhodesian Government on a settlement.

As the House knows, we believe that no worthwhile progress can be made until there is more agreement between the races inside Rhodesia on the basis for a settlement. That position has not, as yet, been reached. We have not therefore entered into fresh negotiations with the Rhodesian authorities, but we are maintaining contact, so far as it is possible, with all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, including the Rhodesian authorities.

Is it not clear, sadly, that there is a world of misunderstanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Smith régime as to what would constitute the proper basis for a settlement? In the absence of a settlement, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government's existing policy towards the régime will be maintained?

I would not care to measure how far there is a gulf of misunderstanding between Mr. Smith and the Government, but my judgment is that the races in Rhodesia have not come together sufficiently yet—although some progress has been made—for me to be able to say that negotiations can be resumed.

Will the Foreign Secretary say what he intends to do about tightening the administration of sanctions, in view of recent convincing revelations of British sanction-breaking? Does he not agree that the degree of commitment to sanctions policy internationally is directly to be related to the degree to which we are prepared to demonstrate our own administration of sanctions?

If the hon. Member or anyone else can give me evidence that sanctions are being broken—that is what is wanted, not newspaper stories but real evidence—we shall proceed to examine it and send it to the United Nations committee responsible for enforcing sanctions.

Is it not a fact that the whole world is breaking these sanctions and that Great Britain is evidently the only Power of any substance which is adhering to a sanctions policy? In these circumstances, would it not be best for us to turn our back on sanctions, recognising that it is an impossible policy to implement, and try to reach agreement outside the ambit of the sanctions policy?

I think that my hon. Friend's objective is really the same as mine and that of the Government, which is to get a settlement. I am sure that the whole House would agree that that is the prize. Therefore, for the moment at any rate, and until I make a statement to the House, I believe that it is better to maintain the status quo. That gives us the best chance of a settlement, and that prize being so great it is worth exercising infinite patience, even though I understand my hon. Friend's impatience because others are breaking sanctions.

Does not the Foreign Secretary recollect that last month he told the House that what was needed in the sanctions procedure was the political will to make sanctions effective? In view of that statement, and of what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has said, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he proposes to do about firms that were named and against which specific evidence was claimed in the Daily Mirror investigation last month? How can a British newspaper do more than Her Majesty's Government can in this matter?

British newspapers can say whether, in their opinion, certain firms are breaking sanctions. Her Majesty's Government must have actual evidence of this before they send it to the United Nations committee. I am having this matter examined, and if the evidence is there it will be given to the United Nations committee.

My right hon. Friend spoke of contacts. Will he send a diplomatic or consular representative to Salisbury to help British subjects in trouble and to assess from day to day the degree of support obtained by the Rhodesia Settlement Forum, the National African Council and other Africans interested in a settlement; and also to assess the true character of the variegated body, the ANC?

It is, as my hon. Friend says, difficult to get accurate information from Rhodesia. I will consider at some point the necessary contacts which ought to be made out there so that the Government may be fully informed and kept up to date.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how he is having this matter of sanction-breaking examined? Has he asked the editor of the newspaper concerned? What form is his examination taking? It is important in our view, and that of many other countries, that this matter should be examined.

I am in contact with Mr. Smith. I agree that the situation has not developed possibly as we in this House hoped it might on the ground in Rhodesia in relation to contacts between the races. I do not think that this is any reason for the House to lose patience. We ought to be very patient because the prize of a settlement in that part of Africa—a just settlement agreed to by the Africans—would be enormous.

Is there not considerable evidence that Africans who were opposed to the Pearce settlement proposals have now realised that the only alternative is eventual fusion with South Africa and have changed their minds? What is my right hon. Friend doing to ascertain the strength and depth of this opinion?

As I said just now, I shall certainly take steps to ascertain as best I can at first hand what is happening in Rhodesia and how far these movements have gone. I would rather not take it further at the moment.

Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to examine the evidence in last Sunday's Observer of sanction-busting by Lonhro? Does he agree that sanction-breaking by anyone in aid and comfort of an illegal régime is the unacceptable face of treachery?

As long as we are required to implement mandatory sanctions, if there is evidence that sanctions have been broken that evidence will be acted on and sent to the United Nations committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest assessment of the attitude of African opinion in Rhodesia towards a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite Bishop Muzorewa and other Rhodesian African leaders to London to discuss the current state of African opinion on his settlement proposals.

We try to keep in touch with all shades of Rhodesian opinion, including the Africans, as best we can. But we are not in a position at present to make a comprehensive assessment of African views. I am, of course, always willing to see anyone from Rhodesia if I think that such a meeting could contribute towards a settlement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence of growing apprehension and fear among white Rhodesians as well as black about the illegal régime? What can the Government do to encourage those of all races who wish to return to legality, loyalty to this House and the Crown, and the establishment of a decent democratic society? What can be done to help those in Rhodesia, both black and white, to achieve these desiderata?

I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's approach. It is a very bad situation that is arising in Rhodesia, and all Rhodesians, both European and African, should realise it. That it why I hope that they will come together and make proposals that Her Majesty's Government can accept as a basis for settlement. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall try our best. We have not made as much progresss as I would hope, but I will report to the House as discussions go on.

Does not all history in Africa show that where a minority refuses to deal with a nationalist majority the situation becomes increasingly more difficult? Would not Mr. Smith be well advised to start talking seriously to representatives of African opinion before it becomes more extreme than it is now?

I agree with my hon. Friend. He is right.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman specifically to invite Bishop Muzorewa and other African leaders to this country to open negotiations if it proves impossible to open negotiations right across the board? Is he aware that informed opinion in this country—the African Bureau for example—and not irresponsible opinion takes the view that it is time to open negotiations with the majority rather than to continue to attempt to negotiate with an unrepresentative minority?

It would be useless to open a negotiation to which the governing party in Rhodesia would not be a party. It does not seem to me that that would lead us anywhere. If we can get the parties to come together, many more things are possible, including possibly the negotiation.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to invite the Soviet Ambassador to official talks about relations between the United Kingdom and the USSR.

The previous Soviet ambassador left on 9th May. His successor is due to arrive today. We look forward to receiving him later this month.

I warmly welcome the arrival of the new Soviet Ambassador, Mr. Nikolai Lunkov, but does my right hon. Friend agree that if the good will between our two nations is to be maintained, let alone increased, there must as a first resort be an earnest discussion about minimising, if not getting rid of it entirely, the staggering gap of £137 million in the trade between the two countries, recognising that our exports to the USSR are only £90 million a year?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was recently in Moscow and drew attention to the gap, and I hope that he will have plenty of opportunity to re-emphasise the points with Mr. Lunkov while he is here.

Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the new ambassador that one impediment to improved relations is the Soviet's treatment of a number of Jewish people whose only crime is their wish to join their families elsewhere?

The Soviet authorities are well aware of our views on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Libyan Government concerning their treatment of British diplomats and their families.

We have made repeated protests and representations to the Libyan Government about the difficulties created for British diplomatists and their families and other British subjects by the Libyan requirement for Arabic in passports.

Is not it right that it is not only the requirement of Arabic in passports but also restrictions, for example, on the freedom of British diplomats to drink beer in the embassy, that are worrying people? It is the whole treatment here from beginning to end which is completely intolerable. Is it not time that something serious was done to bring an end to this situation?

We hope that a general improvement can be achieved during negotiations, but on the particular question of the ban on diplomats' use of alcohol I do not think representations would be effective as the Libyan Government's objection to the use of alcohol is based on religious grounds.

Are other countries affected? If the Libyan authorities are in breach of international diplomatic agreements, would it not be possible to concert our action with that of other countries in order to persuade the Libyan authorities to adopt a more mature and civilised attitude?

The Libyan requirement has affected diplomatists and others of all countries which do not have Arabic in their passports. We are attempting to concert action to try to achieve a solution through negotiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in making arrangements for monitoring the fall-out from the forthcoming French nuclear tests in British dependencies in the Pacific.

We have as a precaution stationed a two-man team on Pitcairn Island. In the event of a French test series, the team will, as in previous years, conduct radiological monitoring. The team were landed on Pitcairn by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Sir Percivale".

Are not these arrangements very poor, since it is possible that far-reaching genetic and health damage will already have been done if the tests have taken place? Why cannot the Government come clean now and make a public pronouncement, in harmony with their Commonwealth colleagues, Australia and New Zealand, denouncing the irresponsibility of these tests and totally dissociating themselves from the French Government's policy?

The hon. Gentleman asked what arrangements we had made for monitoring the tests and I gave him an accurate account of what we are doing. The French Government are well aware of our view that atmospheric tests are wrong, and we hope that in due course they will adhere to the treaty.

Have the Government made really fundamental representations to the French Government about this matter, in view of our responsibility for these islands in the Pacific?

The French Government are well aware of our view, and the entirely independent Pacific Governments of Australia and New Zealand have made their own representations.

Precisely what is meant by the phrase "as a precaution"?

Previously, when there have been tests, we have stationed teams to monitor their effect, and so far, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the tests have led to no increase in radiation.

Does my right hon. Friend believe in consistency in our policies? Is it not inconsistent to send gunboats to Iceland to prevent a large enclosure of the sea for purposes of fishery conservation yet not to utter even a whisper of protest when the French propose to enclose, equally illegally, a large area of the sea for nuclear test purposes?

I do not think so, because there has been what I think one may call aggression on the part of Iceland in regard to fishing, but hitherto on a number of occasions the French tests have led to no increase of radiation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now give the results of his inquiries into the ways that false British passports can be obtained; and whether he will make a statement.

It would not be in the public interest to reveal the methods used to obtain passports falsely, or the precautions we take against this. But my inquiries reveal no evidence that attemps to use false United Kingdom passports are at all frequent.

That correction will be widely welcomed, since our controls against illegal immigration are very much centred at the border and consist of checks on people coming into this country. Will my right hon. Friend say how many falsified passports have come to his notice, and whether he is satisfied that the precautions, even though he does not wish to state what they are, are adequate to discover attempts at deception?

I am glad that I have been able to set the record right by means of this Question. In 1972, 139 cases of offences regarding passports came to our notice. That represents about one ten-thousandth of our normal annual issue of about 1¼ million passports. We do not propose to tighten the procedure for the issue of passports, because that would involve lengthy delays for the large body of genuine applicants, and I am convinced that extra tightening for the very limited number of offences would he unacceptable to the general public.

What reply have the Government received from the Government of Israel to their extremely strong protest about the use of false British passports in the raid on the Lebanon?

We have still not received a satisfactory explanation from the Israeli Government of the use of falsified British passports in the raid on Beirut.

In view of the allegations of abuse, what progress is being made in insisting on individual passports for children?

That is a rather wider question. If my hon. Friend will be good enough to put it down I shall answer it specifically.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits to Greece have been made by Ministers in the last 12 months.

One, Sir.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that when Ministers go to Greece they make clear beyond a scintilla of doubt that it is the aim of British foreign policy to see democracy restored in Greece, as it is the aim of the NATO Treaty, too? Second, may we know which Minister was responsible for the idiotic decision to send British troops on a NATO exercise in Northern Greece at a time when part of the Greek armed forces were revolting against the dictatorship there?

NATO exercises have been held over the years, and Greece has taken part. We see no reason to disturb this; nor did the previous Government. On the general matter of ministerial visits to Greece, there has, as I say, been one, as was the case in the previous Government's time.

As this illegal and dictatorial régime has now deposed the monarch, to whom is our ambassador accredited, and when will he be coming home?

He will not be coming home. We shall leave him there.

Why?

Because there is no need, so we are informed, to alter his terms of accreditation to the Greek Government. The Greek Government meet our criteria for recognition, being in control of the country.

Is it correct that he is legally accredited to the Greek Government? Was he not accredited to the monarch, and, if so, has there not been a change, and should we not take advantage of this illegal change which has been made to raise with our allies in NATO, and, indeed, in the EEC, what should be the combined attitude of our countries towards the Greek régime, which is clearly bitterly opposed by many people in Greece?

We very much deplore the fact that the monarchy has been brought to an end by this illegal Government, as the right hon. Gentleman described it. Nevertheless, they are a Government with whom we have had relations all these years, and the situation has not changed in that respect. They are in control of the country, and therefore we recognise them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if Ministers were not to visit countries of whose Governments they disapproved, there would be few places to which they could go?

I agree with what my hon. Friend says.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to correct a slip of the tongue I made just now in picking up a phrase of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he talked about

"the illegal régime in Greece."

"the illegal régime in Greece."

Everyone accepts that the right hon. Gentleman made a slip of the tongue. I thought that it was a very fortunate slip of the tongue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on progress towards a Conference for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks on European security.

I am glad to say that the preparatory talks for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe ended in Helsinki on 8th June with agreement ad referendum to participating Governments on a document containing a detailed agenda for the conference. I shall be arranging for copies of this document to be laid in the Library.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in the next stages of the talks we make clear to the Soviet Union that we attach the greatest importance to the increasing of human contacts between East and West, and that by this we mean not just contacts between Governments or between special cultural groups but increasing communication and travel by and between individuals? Second, will my right hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to look constructively at the question of some sort of continuing machinery to emerge when the CSC comes to an end?

The agenda covers the question of more contacts between Western Europe and the Warsaw Pact countries. That is satisfactory to us, and we shall certainly argue as my hon. Friend suggests. I have an open mind about the question of continuing machinery. We had better see how the committees which have been set up with specific terms of references get on before we decide whether or not there is to be continuing machinery.

May I say how glad we all are with the progress made at these vital discussions. Will the Foreign Secretary say whether progress is to be made beyond defining the heads of the agenda to be discussed, how far this has proceeded, and whether the report that he proposes to make available to us will indicate how far discussions have now proceeded beyond agreement on the heads?

I am glad to be able to say that there is considerable progress beyond the heads of agreement. In other words, the discussions which the committees will have to undertake are indicated in considerable detail, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he looks at the documents in the Library.

Everyone will welcome agreement on the preliminary conference and that this is a comprehensive agenda, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most people will expect the conference soon to get down to discussion of the reduction of forces and the halting of the tremendous amount of rearmament now going on on both sides in spite of declarations by Eastern and Western Governments? Far too much money is being spent on active rearmament, and any conference which loses itself in generalities and does not get down to these things very quickly will be a great disappointment to many who have argued for the conference over the years.

The hon. Member appears to be mixing up two conferences. In the conference on European security there will not be much talk, if any, about the reduction of armaments. There may be talk about supervising manoeuvres. It is when the question of mutual and balanced force reductions is reached that the problems raised by the hon. Member will be dealt with.

Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that the question of the free movement of people and ideas between East and West Europe will be on the agenda?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to renew the right of individual petition under Article 25 of the European Convention of Human Rights upon the expiry of the present period of acceptance.

Like most of the countries which have accepted the right of individual petition, the United Kingdom's declaration is made for a specific period. The current period expires on 13th January 1974. The question of renewal will be considered shortly before that date.

Since it has been known for the last two years that the question will fall to be decided, why does there have to be such prolonged consideration? Since it will fall to be decided almost exactly on the 25th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would that not be the most inappropriate time to abrogate an important right which has been recognised for the last eight years?

The hon. and learned Member should not decide in advance that we are even thinking of abrogation. This is an entirely new step in jurisprudence and we naturally need all the evidence we can get about how it is working before finally making up our minds and, if deciding to proceed, whether to do so for an indefinite or a defined period.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that it would occasion considerable dismay to those countries which meet with us in the Council of Europe if we were to abrogate that right? I do not imagine for one moment that we shall abrogate but the Convention of Human Rights is so far the greatest flowering of the European principle in the Council of Europe.

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend will appreciate that the majority of those countries which have accepted the right of individual petition have done so for a specified period of years. We are in that majority.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Government of North Vietnam concerning the continued presence of North Vietnamese troops in Laos and Cambodia.

The North Vietnamese Government know that we wish to see the Paris agreement fully implemented. I think it right to wait for the result of the talks between the United States and the North Vietnamese in Paris before deciding what diplomatic action should be taken. I understand that a communiqué is being issued on this matter this afternoon.

Will the Government consider strengthening our diplomatic representation in Hanoi so that any protest we wish to make on this subject can thereby be strengthened?

Yes. I opened discussions with the North Vietnamese at the Paris Peace Conference. I am considering matters concerning timing.

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

The policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East remains to do what they can to help towards a peaceful settlement on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967. We hope that the current meeting of the Security Council will bring progress towards such a settlement.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that there is a danger that the large arms contracts recently signed with a number of Arab States could upset the delicate arms balance in the Middle East? Does he also realise that selling powerful weapons to the Libyan Government is about as sensible as giving matches and petrol to a young child?

I shall not comment on any particular sale because I am not sure to what my hon. Friend is referring, but in general we will not sell arms to either side in the Arab-Israeli dispute which would in our view possibly increase the chances of a resumption of hostilities. That is the criterion by which we judge the sales of arms.

May I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said in the latter part of his last answer? As it is a British initiative which is proceeding now in New York through the deputy representative, would it not at some stage be helpful to associate with this British initiative the United States and the Soviet Union for political reasons and for the reasons contained in the question put by the lion. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart)?

The Security Council is meeting at this moment for the first time for many years to have a serious discussion on the Middle East. It is likely to adjourn for a short period during the summit meeting and Dr. Kissinger has said that President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev will be discussing the Middle East when they meet in Washington later this month. It is not for me to say what conclusions will emerge from those discussions.

On the question of arms supply, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that because of the enormous supply of American arms to Israel, including Phantom aircraft, there is still a vast superiority of strike weapons in Israel? On the question of the Security Council meeting, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the Government will continue to reaffirm the need for the return of the 1967—that is the new—Palestinian refugees to the West Bank even before a final settlement is reached?

I can add nothing about the matter of arms. We are well aware of the strength of armaments held by various countries in the Middle East and we judge requests for military equipment from each side on their merits. On the position of the Palestinians, our permanent representative made clear in his speech on 11th June our views on the Middle East and he referred to the position of the Palestinians in that speech.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts have been made to secure the release of Mr. Percy Cleaver, a British journalist arrested in Tanzania on 3rd July 1972, and subsequently held in prison.

None, Sir. Mr. Cleaver has been charged with an offence under Tanzanian law and it would not be right to attempt to intervene in Tanzanian judicial processes.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his observations. Is it not a fact that Mr. Percy Cleaver has been in detention for almost a year in Tanzania, and that the trial has only just come up? Is it not also a fact that he has been prevented during the trial from reading the indictment, which the public are prevented from hearing? Has he been provided with an adequate defence? Is not the situation of Mr. Cleaver far more dangerous than that endured by Mr. Peter Niesewand, though there have been no protests in the House or the media in this country about the dire straits in which Mr. Cleaver, a British citizen, has found himself for more than 11 months?

The time taken in bringing Mr. Cleaver to trial was a matter in the hands of the Tanzanian authorities, but the high commission made frequent representations to them about it. Mr. Cleaver was charged on 12th February The trial started on 4th June and has now been adjourned until 23rd July. Mr. Cleaver has a lawyer and counsel of his own choice. The difference between his case and the Niesewand case is that the United Kingdom has constitutional responsibilities for Southern Rhodesia but not for Tanzania.

Is there not another difference? Is not Mr. Cleaver a British citizen, and is not Mr. Niesewand a Southern Rhodesian citizen?

I should like time to confirm that, but Mr. Cleaver certainly is a British subject. There are many differences between the two cases. In the Niesewand case no details of charges or judgment were produced. In this case the details of charges have been made publicly available.

Do not the Government have responsibility for a number of British subjects who have been detained in Southern Rhodesia without trial for many years? Are the Government any less concerned about them because they happen to have black skins?

Of course not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding the Iceland fisheries dispute.

Naval protection is working well, provided trawlers stay reasonably close together. But we have no wish to keep the Navy there for a moment longer than it is necessary; and are ready to withdraw it at any time if we can be confident that harassing will cease.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware how thankful the fishing community, particularly their womenfolk, are about the continuing lull, which is not unconnected in their minds with the advent of the Navy? Will he say more about the initiative taken by Dr. Joseph Luns, the Secretary-General of NATO, particularly following the latest move of the Icelanders to ask the Americans to terminate the Keflavik base? Is it correct that Dr. Luns asked that the Navy should leave pending further negotiations? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm assurance that it will not leave those waters until the Icelanders give a guarantee to cease harassment of our men?

Dr. Luns has not pressed us to take any action that we would not wish to take. We look upon the American base as an entirely separate matter from the fisheries question, not connected with it at all. Unless the Icelanders can agree to stop harassing, I do not see how we can withdraw the Navy.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that protocol 6 of Iceland's trade agreement with the European Community, which covers her exports of fish, will not become operative on 1st July, when it was due to become operative, and that it will have to wait until Iceland complies with her international obligations?

I can confirm that.

Is it not clear that it would be very one-sided to ask for the withdrawal of naval protection until harassment ceased, but that it is not likely to cease until we have some kind of negotiated agreement? Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to use the offices of Dr. Joseph Luns as an intermediary to try to get some negotiations going? Do not we need a temporary settlement until the Law of the Sea Conference next year, which, if advance reports are to be believed, is likely to alter the whole basis of legality in those waters? Therefore, should we not be getting ourselves into a position where we can negotiate against the changes that are likely to take place?

The right hon. Gentleman has stated the dilemma very well. We are quite willing for Dr. Luns to be an intermediary to get us into a negotiation, and he is trying to help in that direction. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not forget that the waters in question are international, and that we went to the highest United Nations organisation—the International Court—to get a judgment on what we should do between now and the time when the Law of the Sea Conference begins, and it gave us a judgment. We not only acted upon it but went 25,000 tons lower than the figure that court awarded. We could hardly have done more.

I do not think that anyone disagrees with that, but, because this is an intractable problem, would the Foreign Secretary be willing, for example, to have Dr. Luns sitting in on discussions that might be resumed between Her Majesty's Government and the Icelandic Government to get us both out of the present situation?

If that would help, it would be agreeable, but Dr. Luns and the Norwegian Foreign Minister have offered to mediate in that way and the offers have been rejected by the Icelandic Government. When I arrive in Copenhagen tomorrow I shall have to see whether we can devise any conciliatory machinery.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while everything he said about our position is quite true, it is equally true that the fact that many more countries—Canada, for example—are talking about a territorial limit extension of 100 miles is a factor in the persistence of the Icelandic attitude? In view of that, can the right hon. Gentleman say anything about how far ahead we are in preparing a British attitude on territorial limits for the Chilean conference to which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred?

I do not think that we want to lay down a position before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea assembles. I do not think that it would be a good thing to do. The Icelanders have fallen into that trap. It will be better to go to the conference with fairly open minds and negotiate something reasonable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further offers of assistance he plans to make to the Indian Government to help alleviate suffering in drought affected areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid requested or given in relief of drought in central India.

I have made it clear to the Indian authorities that I am willing to consider giving any help from the aid programme that they may request to reinforce their own efforts, but I understand that they do not intend at present to ask us for such help.

Does the Minister agree that a great nation such as India is unlikely to go round asking for help of this kind except in exceptional circumstances? Is it not the case that the situation is very serious, and that extra offers of assistance from Governments such as the British Government would be welcome?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we have already recognised the need for water supplies and for well drilling. We have offered help for both through the normal aid programme and through a contribution to UNICEF. On the general question, I do not accept that it would be right for me to do more than make it clear to the Indian Government, as I have done, that we are ready to help if they requested it. That is what was done some time ago.

What is the present position regarding the famine which existed in Nepal? Has it finished now? Has our aid to Nepal, which was very welcome, terminated?

That is another matter. I advise my hon. Friend to put down a Question on it.

It must be accepted, given the substantial programme of the Indian Government, that any help that we could offer would be only marginal. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people deeply regret that he has seen fit to take a rather rigid attitude—namely, that we give help only if we are asked rather than offer help? Further, is he aware that some of us find it extraordinary that he should even have suggested to the Indian Government that one way of helping would be to distort our existing aid programme to India? It is rather disappointing that he has taken that attitude, in the light of our long-established friendship with India.

The right hon. Lady is becoming an expert in semantics. I do not think that I could do more than make it perfectly clear to the Indian Government that if they put in any request for help in this situation we would be ready to consider it sympathetically. The right hon. Lady will realise—she was responsible for it—that the aid programme to India is very large. If the Indian Government requested any of our very large allocation of aid to the Indian Continent for help in this situation we should be ready to consider that.

What the right hon. Gentleman seems to be insensitive about is that the Indian Government are very conscious that they have a massive programme to deal with what is a serious drought situation. They will not go on their knees to ask people for help. It is our understanding that if friends were ready to offer aid the help would be gratefully received. There is a difference between asking and accepting an offer.

I cannot add very much more. We have offered to help if the request were made. We consider that is the right approach. Anything further would suggest that we know better than the Indians what is good for them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the British Government will give to the rehabilitation, recovery and rebuilding of North Vietnam, Saigon and the areas of South Vietnam governed by the National Liberation Front; and if he will ask the British Council to consider bringing graduate students to Great Britain from each of these three areas for training in science.

We have said that we are willing to take part in any general international aid effort which is mounted for reconstruction in Indo-China, and we have already provided more than £100,000 for immediate relief aid. As a part of our bilateral aid programmes for South Vietnam, we provide training in Britain in science and other disciplines.

Is the Minister aware that last month a group of scientists from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam visited British firms making medical and scientific equipment? Will the Minister consider granting credit facilities for such sales?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, our official aid is provided on a Government-to-Government basis. Therefore, it is provided to Governments which we recognise. We have not recognised the Government which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. If we received requests from a recognised Government for the kind of help that he suggests we should consider them seriously.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the British delegate abstained from voting on the United Nations Resolution of 18th December last, concerning the sovereignty of coastal States over natural resources in waters above the Continental Shelf.

Certain passages in the resolution were not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government. They carried implications inconsistent with international law and sought to prejudice the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the voting on the resolution was 102 to nil? In view of that overwhelming expression of international opinion, will he explain how he intends to maintain his refusal to recognise Iceland's right to fish above its own Continental Shelf? We have all heard of Horatius defending his bridge, but with odds like this even he would have agreed to call it a day.

Present international law gives no support to claims for exclusive fisheries jurisdiction exceeding 12 miles. No doubt there may be changes as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference which assembles in April 1974. I should have thought that Iceland would do well to co-operate in working out an agreed solution at the conference. In fact, it has tried to extend its limits unilaterally, and has tried to repudiate its binding agreement, which was reached with us in 1961, thus flouting the ruling of the International Court.

Is not the Minister reflecting a somewhat too inflexible Government attitude to the development of international law? Is not a resolution of the United Nations a source of international law which would be taken into account in the jurisdiction of the International Court and which has been taken into account in the past? Is this not a remarkable academic approach, and the kind of approach that brings international law into disrepute?

I should have thought that nothing was more calculated to bring international law into disrepute than to follow a course contrary to international law while the law still stands. That is surely the basis on which our whole activity in this House is founded—namely, that the law has to be observed until it is changed. We still have very little idea of what the outcome of the Law of the Sea Conference will be. It is not very far ahead. In fact, it meets next year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the law of the sea is probably the greatest achievement of international law and that many people, not only in Great Britain but in many other countries, hope that Her Majesty's Government will set their face against unilateral abrogation and unilateral changes, from whatever source? Does my right hon. Friend agree that this and all other allied matters, such as the limits of territorial waters and jurisdiction over the Continental Shelf, are best left to the forthcoming Conference on the Law of the Sea?

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right.

Surely, in this imperfect world it is even more necessary for small nations to accept the law as it stands than for large nations, especially if they expect the law to be changed, and for others to preserve it in due course? That having been said, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are increasingly concerned that the Government may get themselves boxed into an impossible position if they go to the conference without a well-thought-out agreement or a well-thought-out position? They may find that there will be an extension of the limits of territorial waters. That seems possible at the moment. We are asking that the Government should consider actively the position and present it to the House and to the country so that we do not find ourselves in an impossible international position once the conference has started.

We shall go to the conference very carefully prepared. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just said, we ought to go with an open mind. It would be wrong to make up our minds in advance on exactly where we stand. This is always a mistake in advance of any international conference—as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would have been the first to agree had he been taking over the International Monetary Fund.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, so far from having proved a source of international law, United Nations' resolutions have proved to be almost the exact opposite, and have in general been expressions of the contempt in which international law is held when racialist emotions are involved?

I bow to the hon. and learned Gentleman's legal experience, without wishing to endorse every word of what he has said.

We accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said about a unilateral obligation in international law. Nevertheless, is there not something wrong in the attitude he is taking, namely, that as a Government we can go to an international conference with an open mind and no policy? It would surely be helpful, in relation to both the present dispute and the conference at Santiago, which is only a year away, if we had some indication of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the whole question of exclusive fishing rights and a general sharing of the world's resources below the oceans.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have the generosity to accept that I never said that we would go with an open mind and no policy. I said that we would go fully prepared, but with an open mind, in the sense that we would not determine our final policies until we had heard the arguments advanced by others at the conference. There is not much point in having conferences if people who attend them have closed minds.