asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's present relations with the Government of Chile.

Her Majesty's Government recognised the new Government of Chile on 22nd September. We shall seek to maintain good relations with the new Chilean Government as we did with its predecessor.

Has the Minister noted the heroic attempts of the Swedish Ambassador, in contrast to our own, to offer refuge to those who are seeking asylum from the barbarities practised by that wicked regime? Is it not in stark contrast to the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in supplying military weapons to that régime? Are there no limits to which this Government will descend in appeasing dictators?

On the question of asylum, it has been the long-standing practice of British Governments of all colours and connections not to give asylum to individuals seeking asylum there, unless they were in danger of arrest in the immediate vicinity—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] No, this has not been the case. As for the arms, the orders were placed by the previous Government. We are fulfilling the orders which were contracted for in the ordinary way and which are important from the point of view of employment and the interests of the countries concerned.

Is it not a fact that the whole House will deplore the temporary suspension of parliamentary government in Chile? Is the present Government of Chile not pledged to restore parliamentary democracy just as soon as the present situation has been stabilised? Second, is my right hon. Friend aware that, when elected by Congress, the late President Allende gave certain specific constitutional guarantees and that by the time his Government left office all those guarantees had been abrogated?

Rubbish.

I join my hon. Friend in regretting that a long-established constitutional régime should have been overthrown by force. I would not wish to take sides in the internal controversies of Chile. We naturally hope that a constitutional Government will be restored, but it is not for us to pass judgment on Chile's internal affairs.

Why not?

We shall, of course, watch the situation carefully.

Is the Minister aware that his unsympathetic attitude on this matter is in strong contrast with the feelings of people in this country about this régime? Is it true that Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Ireland among the EEC countries are offering refuge in their embassies to people who are seeking it? If that is the case, and if we are now so proud of getting concerted foreign policies, when does the Minister propose to fall in line and allow refugees to take refuge in our embassy?

It has never been our practice—nor was it the practice of the previous Government—to give asylum in embassies except when people were in danger in the immediate vicinity——

They are!

When I say"in the immediate vicinity", I mean if someone is being chased or pursued. The same problem has arisen time and again in all the countries behind what used to be called the Iron Curtain. In the Soviet Union and elsewhere dozens of people have sought refuge in our embassies, and we have not thought it appropriate—nor did the previous Government—to fall in with those requests.

Is the Minister proposing to make representations to the Chilean Government about the position in which the Swedish Embassy in Santiago finds itself? If there is an assault on that embassy in the way that seems likely, is not that an affront to all of us?

I have, of course, seen the Press reports about the Swedish Embassy; I am still awaiting an official report from our people on the spot. We have previously made representations to the Chilean Government expressing to them the strong feelings held in this country about the situation. They have assured us that everything will be carried out in accordance with the due processes of Chilean law.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking in the matter of Mr. Frank Rutman, who has been held in Gerona Detention Centre, Spain, since 31st August without being charged and without bail.

Her Majesty's consul helped Mr. Rutman obtain legal representation and Her Majesty's consul continues to keep a close watch on the case, which is being investigated in accordance with normal Spanish procedure.

Cannot we persuade the Spanish Government to cut out the intolerable delays in their criminal processes and make decent arrangements for bail?

There have been a great many cases where delays have been even longer, and we have made representations to the Spanish authorities, through our embassy in Madrid, with a view to speeding up the trials of British subjects in Spain or, in suitable cases, allowing them provisional liberty while their cases are under investigation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the detention without trial in Spain since 29th June of Mr. David John Flippance, a United Kingdom citizen; and what representations the British Government have made to the Spanish authorities.

The trial is set down for 17th November.

Does the Minister notice that this is the second Question about a United Kingdom citizen held in Spain without trial and without charge for a very long period? Does he agree that this is not an uncommon situation for visiting British people to find themselves in? Does he admit that it is the policy of the Foreign Office, under this administration at least, not to make representations until two or three months have passed, on the ground that, how-ever low Spanish standards are on this matter, they are abiding by Spanish standards, despite the behaviour of Spain on Gibraltar and the fact that British tourists' money is tremendously important to the Spanish balance of payments? Will the right hon. Gentleman be making a public statement, so that people from this country who might visit Spain will realise that if they find themselves in that situation they cannot look for the support of the Foreign Office and will be subject to processes which would be regarded as quite unacceptable in this country?

I am glad to say that in this case the hon. Gentleman is wrong. In addition to the representations we have made in the case of Mr. Flippance, our embassy in Madrid has made general representations to the Spanish authorities with a view to speeding up the trials of British subjects in Spain, or, in suitable cases, allowing them provisional liberty while their cases are under investigation. The cases that gave rise to these representations have involved considerably longer delays than the case raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have the support of the whole House in his efforts to ensure that there are fewer delays of justice for Her Majesty's subjects in Spain, and that any success in this matter will dispose the British public favourably to welcome Spain into the European Community?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an urgent meeting with his counterpart in the United States to discuss future policy relating to United States nuclear bases in Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs at what time on Thursday 25th October 1973 he was officially informed of the United States forces' alert; and if he will seek to ensure that, in any comparable future situation, there will be full prior consultation between the United States administration and Her Majesty's Government.

I was informed of the United States' alert early on the morning of 25th October. The United States' alert embraced only precautionary measures. British interests in an emergency are safeguarded by the agreed arrangements for consultation, and that no further discussions on this matter are required.

In view of the humiliation suffered by the British Government a few weeks ago, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking to the House that he will inform the American Government that in no circumstances in future are American forces in Britain to be placed on nuclear alert without their first having received the British Government's permission?

If the bases were to be used for any purpose, there would be consultation. But the Ameri- cans must be allowed to alert their forces the world over, just as we might in certain circumstances.

Since the right hon. Gentleman has now said that he was informed early in the morning of 25th October, will he say why he said, after his statement after Question time on 25th October, that he had no information at that moment? Does that mean that Dr. Kissinger had refused him information, or that Dr. Kissinger had said that the right hon. Gentleman should not tell Parliament anything about it?

I said not that I had no information, but that I had not sufficient information. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read what I said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if I would read out a quotation from HANSARD. He said:

"I do not have the information at this moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th October 1973; Vol. 861, c. 1481.]

Order.

At that particular moment, Dr. Kissinger was going to announce within half an hour exactly what the alert implied. I really thought that the Americans must announce their own alert, not I.

As this matter concerns other NATO allies, including the West Germans, will my right hon. Friend seek clarification within the alliance over the matter of the readiness procedures for United States forces for possible deployment in operations outside the NATO theatre?

These matters can be discussed with Dr. Kissinger when I see him again, which is the best way.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. After the Foreign Secretary has suggested to an hon. Member asking a question that he should quote a short passage from HANSARD, is it not unsatisfactory that the hon. Member should not be allowed to do so?

I do not think that that is a matter of order.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the real reason for concern is the fact that, with the placing of the American forces on stage 3 alert, the clear possibility of their being used in a nuclear conflict came that much nearer? Is it not also clear that it was done without consultation with the British Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that Mr. Brandt has received a letter from President Nixon promising fuller consultation in future in this type of situation? Have we asked the Americans for fuller consultation? If so, what answer did we get?

This matter was discussed in the NATO meetings yesterday and Dr. Luns afterwards said that the consultations gave satisfaction. I think I had better leave this where it is now. All I can say now is that the rule has operated for a long time that if our bases are to be used there is consultation. I think that that is sufficient protection for this country.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government have taken in the provision for the international peacekeeping force in the Middle East; what his plans are for further participation in such a force; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Great Britain's contribution to the United Nations peacekeeping services, following the recent Middle East war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests have been received for British participation in the keeping of peace between Israel and the Arab States.

The first four national contingents of the new United Nations Emergency Force have been flown to Egypt from Cyprus by the Royal Air Force and are in position. They number about 1,000 men. Agreement in principle has now been reached on the selection of seven further national contingents. We, like the other permanent members, will not be providing troops, but we are ready to give such assistance as we can from the sovereign base areas in Cyprus. We have made clear our willingness to contribute British troops to the larger and more permanent force which in our view may well be needed to guarantee a settlement; the exact composition of such a force will be a matter for the peace negotiations, which we hope will start soon.

I am pleased with the last part of that reply, which shows that the right hon. Gentleman is still offering British armed forces, or members of our armed forces, for the permanent peacekeeping rôle, because it immediately reminds me that it is just over 25 years since I left Israel in the withdrawal from there, and after a lot of——

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a formal question.

This is part of the question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say that after all this time we are getting back to basically the situation that we were in in 1948, with the same ideals. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman is insisting that British forces should be involved.

I should like to hear more of the hon. Gentleman's reminiscences outside, but all I will say at the moment is that I think there will come a time when there will have to be demilitarised zones, which will have to be policed by rather different forces from the observers now in position.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider initiating a resolution calling on the United Nations, as a long-term solution, to lease from all combatants substantial areas of land which might form buffer zones and which could be policed by an individually recruited international force which would not be withdrawn at the whim of any national Government?

I agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Such a force ought not to be withdrawn at what he called the whim of any individual Government. The problems of leasing property should be left to the peace negotiations.

Is not a peacekeeping force which has to be negotiated into existence each time there is a crisis rather like a fire brigade having to be recruited each time there is a fire? Will the right hon. Gentleman press for discussions with a view to securing a permanent international peacekeeping force internationally recruited and paid?

Such a force would be much the best solution if it were in existence to call upon. But I think we shall have to see what the Secretary-General and the Security Council say. If we are to have the use of an international force of this kind it must be an efficient one.

Does not the neutral rôle played by Her Majesty's Government in the recent war put British forces in an ideal position to help in any permanent peacekeeping arrangement?

Certainly. We have made it clear, as I have said, that we would provide a contribution if required to do so. There is a number of ways of dealing with a permanent demilitarised zone. I do not think that we want to seek out any particular ideas on this matter, however, until it has been debated in the United Nations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only real basis for a lasting settlement in the area is for Israel to return to her 1967 frontiers, together with a recognition of the rights of the Palestinians? Does not he further agree that the so-called friends of Israel who support that country in her belligerent attitude are doing great disservice to her besides imperilling the peace of the world?

In the recent debate I made my view clear—a view that is already shared by a great many people and will, I believe, be shared by many others. We have to find another security system for Israel than that which she has been operating in the occupied territories.

Whatever the interpretations and translations of Resolution No. 242, must not any Israeli withdrawal be accompanied by firm guarantees of Middle Eastern frontiers? Is it not gratifying that Her Majesty's Government are willing to provide strong forces for this purpose? Will British and European diplomacy be directed towards bringing to the same conference table Israel and the Arab States, where there have been increasing signs of recognising the reality of Israel?

On guarantees, I am sure that any settlement involving demilitarised zones will have to be guaranteed. We have said, and the Europeans have said, that we are willing to take part in those guarantees. This is essential if we are to give Israel—and, incidentally, Egypt as well as the other Arab countries—the security which it must have.

Reverting to the question about peacekeeping forces, will the Foreign Secretary make it absolutely clear that, while the Security Council by resolution barred its permanent members from taking part in the present phase of classification and, perhaps, of enforcing the cease-fire, nevertheless there is no resolution by the Security Council which bars this or any other country necessarily from taking part in the essential operation of maintaining demilitarisation and of securing the guarantees which both sides of the House strongly want to see enforced?

I find myself in complete agreement with the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. Of course, there will be a great difference between the existing observer force, which I should have thought amounted to 1,500, and the approximately 6,000 troops which it is calculated will be necessary later, from which I think nobody's forces ought to be debarred.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the East-West talks on the reduction of military forces which opened in Vienna on 30th October.

:asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the talks in Vienna for military force reductions.

Negotiations on the mutual reduction of forces and armaments and associated measures in Central Europe opened in Vienna on 30th October.

Will the Government support the American proposal to scale down their forces in Europe if Russia does the same, and shall we act similarly? Secondly, instead of expressing horror at the proposal of the United States Congress unilaterally to scale down its forces in Europe, should we not welcome it as a great opportunity for other countries also to save their resources, from which we, the Russians and other countries would all benefit enormously?

As I understand the situation, the opening proposal is that the Americans and the Soviets would consider reductions on their part not involving our own or other European forces, and this is, I think, the right way to approach the problem. I should be very reluctant to give any encouragement or endorsement to unilateral American reductions. The Russians are in overwhelming strength in Eastern Europe, and any unilateral reduction, whether by the Americans or anyone else on our side of the dividing line, could only strengthen the option open to the Russians to make use of their military strength for political or, indeed, military purposes.

Will the Minister go further and admit that the security of the Western Alliance depends upon the reductions being balanced. Will he therefore represent to the American Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, that some of the wilder statements which he made last week, while under pressure in the disputes that he has had over the Middle East, do not advance the cause of the balanced reduction of forces which we want to see take place?

I think it is well understood between the Americans and ourselves that any reductions to preserve the existing balance would have to be asymmetrical and not symmetrical, as I tried to explain when I spoke in the House last Wednesday. I think that is well understood on the American side, and we are of course in constant daily contact with the American delegation at the Vienna talks

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

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

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

Intensive diplomatic consultations are taking place in order to resolve immediate problems and to get negotiations started. I think it essential that negotiations should start very soon if the cease-fire is not to be undermined. I am in close touch with other Governments concerned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, acording to the BBC news on "The World at One" today, there appears to have been a dramatic joint announcement by Dr. Kissinger and President Sadat, indicating that the path is now being broadened towards a just and proper peace settlement in the Middle East? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House how far he was apprised of those discussions and whether we are going to be invited to participate in future?

No, Sir. I cannot say what form the peacekeeping machinery or the peacemaking force will take. It could take a number of forms. As I said in my answer just now, we have been in the closest possible diplomatic contact with all the parties, including the United States Government and the Soviet Union, and all the time we have been injecting ideas as to how these matters might be handled. There are many matters to be handled and they must be got out of the way. It is too early to say what will be the form of the permanent peacemaking machinery.

Would it not be more sensible and realistic to base our policy in the Middle East upon a recognition of the fact that the Middle Eastern oilfields are really Middle Eastern volcanoes? Consequently, instead of concentrating our activities on the situation in Israel, and where its borders should be, would it not be more realistic to fight for international control and regulation of the price, supply and production of oil?

I do not think that anybody can afford to take a detached position on oil, and I could not answer a question about the way in which international organisations might be formed, or pricing arrangements might be made. All I would say is that oil is tremendously important to all of us in this country. But even more important than that is the fact, as I mentioned just now, that unless we can find an alternative system of security for Israel—and this is why we concentrate upon Israel—we shall not keep the peace and war will break out again.

In view of the present weakness and moral bankruptcy of the United States Government, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that, so far as possible, a European initiative is maintained in the Middle East, and, in particular, a Franco-British initiative in the Security Council?

We are permanent members of the Security Council. The reason why we stood down in the early stages from playing an active part in the peace keeping is obvious—neither the Russians nor the Americans could be there. That seems to be a practical way of handling this matter, and I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures on the United States.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Saudi Arabia is still excluded from the scope of our arms embargo, and in that case can he deny reports that the Saudi Arabians have been passing on equipment to Egypt, including, in particular, British helicopters?

There is a ban on the transfer of British equipment from any country.

With regard to the diplomatic consultations which the right hon. Gentleman says have taken place with the parties, has he raised with the Syrians the question of their continued refusal to abide by the convention on prisoners of war and their refusal to provide the names of prisoners who have been in their hands for many weeks? If he has raised the matter, will he say what response he has received?

We want the convention about the prisoners to be observed. We are coming to the point where lists are being exchanged between Israel and Egypt. I shall have to get more information before I can reply to the hon. Gentleman's question about Syria. We want to see the prisoners' convention observed by all countries concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the speech he made at Harrogate three years ago is exactly in line with the statement made yesterday by the EEC and that, therefore, all this talk about our policy changing under oil blackmail should be dismissed as a lot of propaganda?

As I said in response to one of my hon. Friends just now, one cannot in this country, or in Europe—or indeed anywhere in the developed world—dismiss the question of oil. It is immensely important for all of us that we should get the maximum supplies, or we shall all find ourselves with many unemployed. But this is not the prime motive. The prime motive all the time as my hon. Friend says—and certainly so far as I have been concerned for the last three years—has been to find a different system of security for Israel and Israel's neighbours.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that everyone will support the Government in attempting to secure our supplies of oil? On reading this EEC resolution as an outsider, however, may I ask whether he is aware that most people who have studied it carefully will conclude that it departs from the even-handed approach that he told us he was adopting at the beginning of this dispute? I say this with regret, but it seems to be the case. Will he make clear, therefore, that there will be considerable support if we have to go through a short-term dislocation of oil supplies in order to secure a firm peace because, as this House should know very well, the only possibility of securing it will be by not yielding to blackmail in the future? Yielding to blackmail now will mean that we shall have to pay a higher price later. This statement means more to one side than to the other, and we can only assume that that is the case because of the oil situation, and it is not a very glorious posture.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not make that assumption. He is assuming that eight countries, apart from ourselves, have this as their prime motive. If the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at the statement again, as I have no doubt he will, he will see that several sentiments are expressed. Whatever is done must be done under the authority of the Security Council. Resolution No. 242 must be fulfilled in all its parts. I think the only sentiments which conceivably could have led to misgivings are those under Article 3. But they are all linked together. In other words, one must join up the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by force to Resolution No. 242 in all its parts. On re-reading it, I think the right hon. Gentleman will not find any grounds for his fears.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to combatant Governments about the treatment of prisoners in the Middle East war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Egyptian and Syrian Governments about the exchange of prisoners; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, following his undertaking to look into the matter, what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to Egypt, Syria and Israel concerning the treatment of prisoners of war in the Middle East.

We have urged all parties to the conflict to honour the Geneva Conventions and other inter-nationally accepted rules of war and I hope there will be an early exchange of prisoners. As I indicated to the House on 31st October, we are in touch with the Governments concerned and with the International Committee of the Red Cross.—[Vol. 861, c. 182–3.]

Does that reply mean that the Government do or do not deplore the attitude of the Syrian Government in not observing the Geneva Convention, as was publicly admitted by the Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdul Ghani, on 31st October?

We believe that the convention should be observed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he has told the Egyptian and Syrian Governments directly that they should exchange prisoners as quickly as possible?

Yes, we have made our view clear. I agree that prisoners should be exchanged as quickly as possible. In the war situation involving Bangladesh, Pakistan and India it did not happen. I hope that it will happen soon this time.

Have the Government made any investigation into the allegations that Israeli prisoners of war have been tortured and killed in a most gruesome manner? If they have not, do they intend to do so? If it should prove that these things have happened, as it clearly seems, will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Syrians about this frightful business?

I have nothing to corroborate these allegations. If I get corroborative information I shall make representations.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the requirements of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war are unqualified and unconditional and that therefore it is inexcusable of the Syrian Government to make its conformity with these conventions conditional upon any particular action by the Israeli Government—as was implied in the letter in The Times yesterday from the Syrian chargé d'affaires—just as it would be inexcusable for the Israeli Government to do the same?

Yes, my hon. Friend has stated the situation correctly and I agree with him. We live in a real world, unfortunately. We well remember what happened in the case of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan and I hope that that situation will not be repeated this time.

In addition to making the strongest possible representations directly to the recently combatant countries concerned, will the Foreign Secretary undertake to raise the matter in the appropriate meeting of the United Nations, and bring in the International Red Cross, possibly with a view to having an inquiry into the exact position.

I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations there have been amongst the Foreign Ministers of the European Community regarding the consequences of the Middle East conflict.

The nine members of the Community have kept in close touch throughout the Middle East crisis, in New York, in Middle East capitals and through meetings at various levels of the political co-operation machinery. A statement of the European position was agreed at the political directors' meeting on 11th and 12th October in Copenhagen. The Foreign Ministers met in Brussels on 5th November to discuss the situation and afterwards released a further statement on the position of the community. The text of this is in the Library.

It is my right hon. Friend's duty to protect the vital interests of this country, which must mean safeguarding the economy from dislocation and breakdown, but will he, nevertheless, take note of the deepening public unease over the fact that events seem to be leading European countries, including ourselves, into uncomfortable relations with each other and with some of our other friends in the world?

There was no sign of any uncomfortable relations between each other yesterday. In the Council of Ministers we were unanimous about the way in which to handle this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied by the information most recently published by the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee that mandatory sanctions are in fact being enforced by all members of the United Nations.

No, Sir. There is evidence, including the Fifth Report of the Sanctions Committee, published in February, that some countries still trade with Rhodesia. But many more States do enforce mandatory sanctions.

Is this not very exasperating to people who are honouring their commitments? What is being done to compel or persuade defaulters to come to heel?

When we have reason to believe that there has been a breach of sanctions we make available to the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee the relevant information about it. Our notes are not proof of an offence and it would be misleading to list the countries concerned. The reports of the Sanctions Supervisory Committee are placed in the Library of the House.

On the matter of sanctions, will the Government convey to the American Government our feelings about the continued import of chrome into the United States, particularly as the House of Representatives and the Senate are to vote on the repeal of the Byrd Amendment in the next few weeks?

The enforcement of the regulations governing sanctions is a matter for the Sanctions Supervisory Committee, and the responsibility for ensuring that the United Nations Resolution is observed rests with that committee.

But as it is known the world over that sanctions are being broken right, left and centre by members of the United Nations anyway, why is it that tomorrow we are being asked to vote again to apply, almost unilaterally, sanctions against Rhodesia?

As the matter is to be debated tomorrow, I suggest that my hon. Friend waits and listens to the arguments.

Rubbish!

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what talks he is having with Middle East countries in relation to oil supplies and other problems.

We are maintaining regular and close diplomatic contact with Middle East countries on the question of oil supplies and other problems.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that despite the answers he has given earlier this afternoon there is an increasing volume of opinion in the country, which has been expressed even in Right-wing newspapers this morning, that the Government are on their knees to the Arabs, sacrificing their alleged principles of neutrality for the sake of an attempt to safeguard their oil resources? Will he comment on the more recent expressions of opinion in one of the evening newspapers this afternoon that, according to Dr. Kissinger, peace is imminent, and in another journal, that the Arabs are moving their forces to be ready for a renewal of the war? Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Arabs that any move towards the renewal of the war will be deplored by Her Majesty's Government?

I hope that peace is imminent and that this is the right interpretation, but there is a long way to go before peace is achieved and it will need very skilful negotiations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will not allow his interpretation about oil to go much further. Of course, we must care about oil, and so must he in his constituency, but we must also care about a just settlement in this area. I come back to the fact that we must get a different system from that which has been operating in the last seven years if there is to be peace for Israel, Egypt or Syria. This is the motive behind yesterday's declaration and it is certainly my motive in this matter.

After yesterday's communiqué from the EEC, which has probably had the worst Press in this country since Munich, will my right hon. Friend choose a suitable occasion for joining with the German Chancellor in stating that it is impossible for the Arab States to use political blackmail in other matters over oil supplies? It seems vitally important that the Western world should make clear that it is not prepared to be blackmailed by these minor States.

This has been made quite clear. I would point out that the German Government signed the declaration yesterday.

Is it not understandable that a group of countries which are weak militarily are entitled to use what weapons they have? Is this not customary with other nations? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be too depressed by these outraged cries from both sides of the House about the Arabs' use of oil. Does he not agree that it will be immensely dangerous for this country and for all of Europe—much more so than for the United States—if the Arabs are pushed irreparably into the arms of the Soviet Union?

It is not the Soviet Union or the United States which will suffer from any Arab oil policy. It is Europe which will suffer, and the Arab countries now understand this. I hope they will take note of it. It is a fact of life. Obviously we want to get as much oil as we can to Europe, but we do not want to submit to blackmail.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had discussions with the EEC Council of Ministers and the Commission on a joint policy to cope with the cut-back in oil supplies from the Middle East.

I discussed the energy situation yesterday in the European meeting with my colleagues and we decided to keep matters under review. The Council agreed on the need for member States of the Community to work individually and collectively for a just solution of the Middle East problem.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if the oil supply situation deteriorates in Holland or any other of our European partners Britain will not stand aside and pull up the drawbridge, but will accept her responsibilities as a member of the European Community in the face of Arab discrimination? Is it not a fact that if we sacrifice unity of Europe in the face of blackmail there may be no future for European unity, and we might as well tear up the Treaty of Rome?

We decided yesterday in the Council of Ministers that the political directors would keep this matter under review, and they will report to us regularly. The matter was under discussion for a long time and my colleagues and I agreed that in the present difficult situation further public statements would not help.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Council of Ministers did not agree yesterday on a policy of oil sharing to help Holland? Does the Council of Ministers not realise that the EEC can never have a convincing common foreign policy if it is clear to other countries that it is not capable of co-ordinating its internal policies to meet an outside threat of this kind?

No doubt we shall prove capable of co-ordinating our policies. Yesterday's meeting decided that public statements would not help, and that is our view.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the deep concern felt on both sides of the House arising from an exchange on this subject at Question Time yesterday? It is important, is it not, that what should be heard is the truth and the whole truth? Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister quoted from a statement from Brussels—saying it was important that he quote it correctly—wanting to see Resolution No. 242 implemented in all its parts. At that stage the Opposition Front Bench asked whether anything had been included with reference to withdrawal from "territories" or "the territories". Today the statement has emerged and we see that point 2 clearly says:

"The need for Israel to end the territorial occupation which it has maintained since the conflict of 1967."

Resolution No. 242 is unchanged. There has always been ambiguity in it, and that has not changed. It is covered in this statement, and it has to be fulfilled in all its parts, and that means negotiated in all its parts. The statement pointed out that the evacuation of territory must be a part of the settlement. This has been tried for years. Israel has occupied these territories and there has been no solution other than war. We must find another way to deal with the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us clearly whether any request has been received from the Government of Holland or the European Commission for the disposition of United Kingdom oil supplies in such a way as to encourage sharing to enable Holland to sustain herself? Has there been any request of that kind from the Dutch Government or from the European Commission? May we have an answer, "Yes" or "No"?

No.

I appreciate the misgivings of some of my hon. Friends about the exercise of what is called oil black-mail. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it comes a little odd from the benches opposite, because Labour MPs never permit a week to pass without trying to impose their form of trade sanctions against other countries with whose policies they do not agree?

I have taken note of my hon. Friend's point of view.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to replace the ss "Taraka" or to enable the Gilbert and Ellice Island Colony to replace the money which she was receiving from the seamen working for foreign shipping lines.

The motor vessel "Ninikoria" was brought into immediate use as a training ship to replace ss "Teraka", and there has been no interruption in the seamen's training.

As the seamen trained in ss "Taraka" have made such a significant contribution to the economy of the colony, will my "Ninikoria" be able to train the same number to a similar standard?

The number of cadets trained on the "Ninikoria" will be fewer than on the "Teraka". On the other hand, the training facilities are improved, as the cadets will be trained under seagoing conditions instead of under the static conditions of the old ship.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the British Government propose to give to Ethiopia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to give immediate aid to Ethiopia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid is being provided by Her Majesty's Government to the Ethiopian Government to assist in alleviating the effects of the drought in Ethiopia.

I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave on 2nd November to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).—[Vol. 863, c. 17–18.]

Has the Minister any reliable information about the extent of this tragedy? Can he say whether the reports of up to 100,000 people being already dead are accurate? If that is so, would not it rank as one of the greatest human disasters of all time? Is it not apparent that aid from outside is totally inadequate? Will the right hon. Gentleman say just how much the Government can do in the next week or two?

I do not think that it is possible to quantify usefully the numbers of people who have died or who are suffering. It is very evident that the situation is grave. That is why the Government have so far decided to give the help that they have. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd), we are concentrating with the Ethiopian Government on long-term measures, which I hope will avoid a recurrence of this kind of disaster.

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's decision to aid Ethiopia, but does not he agree, first, that it would be helpful if Royal Air Force aircraft were used to despatch supplies to Ethiopia? Secondly, does not he consider it appalling that we are able to respond to this famine only six months after it started? Will he not take a lead with other nations in trying to devise a more effective early warning system of impending famine?

On the second part of the question, the next Question on the Order Paper specifically relates to the time that we received information and the time that we acted upon it. Regarding transport, I made clear to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West that we are prepared, as far as we can, to help with transport to enable the charitable organisations to move supplies there as quickly as possible.

I welcome very much what the Government have already done in this situation. The right hon. Gentleman will have noted the all-party motion on the Order Paper, to which more than 82 signatures are now appended. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about what many of us are concerned about, namely, the problem that often arises in these urgent human situations, when voluntary organisations seem to have a way of getting through to the real needs of the people? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in this situation, he can give almost unlimited help? I do not mean unlimited in a financial sense, because voluntary aid organisations are not able to spend a tremendous amount. I mean unlimited in terms of their capacity to help, which often can give more relief to more people than inter-governmental help.

Most of the relief contribution that we have announced is going towards relief efforts being co-ordinated by Oxfam. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and Shoreham (Mr. Luce) just now, I said that we are also prepared to help as far as we can with transport, which is very important.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs when the famine in Ethiopia was first brought to his attention by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Ethiopia; and what action has been taken to assist the Government of Ethiopia and voluntary agencies to alleviate the situation.

The ambassador said in March that there were signs of food shortages. He reported serious drought conditions in July among the nomads of the Awash Valley and asked for funds to support a local food-for-work programme. I offered £25,000 in August and, later, another £75,000 for relief operations like the transport of medical supplies, food and blankets; and possibly the replacement of work animals and the provision of seed for next year's sowing.

Is not the Minister aware that one of the most shocking aspects of this tragedy is that it should seem to have existed for so long without the rest of the world knowing about it? After the ambassador's message of March, what action did the Government take to initiate inquiries to discover whether there was anything that the British Government could do to help?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that on this side of Africa, as in the West African drought-stricken countries, there was a great deal of confusion and it was very difficult for anyone, either our representatives on the spot or the Ethiopean Government, to be entirely clear about the situation. That is why our ambassador was not fully seized of the gravity of the matter until the sum- mer was fairly far advanced. This is likely to be true in confused situations of this kind.

Does not my right hon. Friend recollect that the Select Committee on Overseas Development expressed concern about food shortages in many parts of the world over two months ago and recommended that Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with our partners in the EEC, should examine the possibility of setting up international food reserves in order to meet situations of this kind more quickly? Are the Government taking any initiatives in this respect?

My hon. Friend has raised an important point. I think that he will agree that the main needs in these situations are not only food but a very much wider range of needs such as medical supplies and blankets. Therefore, while I note my hon. Friend's point, the needs go very much wider, and we are doing our best to try to meet them.

Is not the case of Ethiopia yet another piece of evidence of the ineffectiveness of such international machinery as exists for identifying need and bringing relief? Will not the Minister study very seriously the suggestions that have now been made in a number of quarters that the EEC should take the initiative in setting up an international disaster relief organisation of its own and keeping it on permanent standby to offer its services in this kind of crisis?

The hon. Gentleman will know of the strenuous efforts which the EEC made on the other side of Africa and the relative success that it has had in relieving the situation there. There are a number of grave situations in the world. We should try to improve our machinery to meet them all.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to publish the findings of the recent investigation into the problems of the island of St. Helena.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prest-wich (Mr. Haselhurst) on 5th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 67.]

I am aware of the contents of that reply. Will the Minister assure the House, however, that when the report is published a great deal of urgency will be attached to its findings? In advance of that report, will the Minister look at the problems that the island is now facing due to a long drought that is has suffered? This is causing a great deal of disturbance to the economy of the island and to the people and the live-stock alike.

I know the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. I know of the report that he made after his visit to the island. I hope very shortly to have a chance of talking to the Governor, both in the light of the development plan and in the light of the current needs of the island at present.

As my right hon. Friend will know, there is a good deal of concern about the position. Will he now give an undertaking that the airport will go ahead?

Yes, because this has been part of the study which the development adviser has been making in collaboration with two people from the Civil Aviation Authority. Therefore, it is one of the matters that will be taken into account.

Can the Minister reassure us that the development adviser's report will be published and open to comment by Members of this House?

Certainly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held by EEC Foreign Ministers with regard to relations with the United States of America.

This question has been discussed by the Nine Foreign Ministers at their meetings on 5th June in Luxembourg, on 23rd July in Brussels and on 10th and 11th September in Copenhagen, and we meet again in Copenhagen on the 20th of this month.

In view of recent foreign policy differences, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is all the more important that we work closely with the United States for the success of the trade negotiations now taking place? Will he ensure that there is a more positive attitude adopted by the EEC in those talks, particularly in view of the complaint that there was an early set-back in the talks, largely due to EEC rigidity on minor agricultural matters?

The Community paper on the approaches to GATT is probably a satisfactory one and we are in close touch with the United States about it. I agree that it is important that we should define Europe's relations with the United States and redefine the Atlantic Alliance.

In view of the coolness between the United States and the European Community on many issues like trade, defence and the Middle East, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, in his statement of yesterday, he said that the Copenhagen meeting could be counted as a success? What was successful about it, apart from getting agreement to disagree with the United States?

Dr. Kissinger takes a view directly opposite to that of the right hon. Gentleman. He remarked on how valuable this paper is.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the course of Questions this afternoon he has constantly referred to the close consultation that goes on with other countries regarding the Middle East problem, particularly with the United States? Is he further aware that it appears to many of us that we would not get this information unless we asked questions in the House? Does he appreciate that some of the replies we get about consultation with the United States are most unsatisfactory? Can he not make a statement about whether there is a rift with the United States? Is he aware that there does not appear to be the tight organisation controlling the passing of information that there ought to be between us and the United States?

Consultations are very close. When one is questioned in the House one gives as much information as one can. But diplomatic consultations must be secret, otherwise they lose half their value.