§ 7. Miss Baconasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will reconsider his decision not to grant visas to a party of staff and students of the Engineering Hochschule in Karl Marx Stadt, in order that they may pay a visit to Leeds in return for two visits paid by the Leeds College of Technology to Germany.
§ Mr. MathewVisas, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, are only granted to East Germans if temporary travel documents have first been issued by the Allied Travel Office in Berlin. Under existing restrictions the Allied Travel Office could not issue travel documents in this case.
§ Miss BaconIs it not the case that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is responsible for this? Does he not agree that, although we have no sympathy whatever for the regime in East Germany, it seems ridiculous that we should prevent students from coming to see what is happening outside the wall instead of helping to confine them at the back of it?
§ Mr. MathewAs the hon. Lady knows, the reasons for restrictions were fully explained by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs in another place on list March, last year. 7 They are still valid. The restrictions are agreed N.A.T.O. policy imposed as a protest against the building of the Berlin Wall by the Communists in August, 1961, and the abolition of freedom of movement between East and Wst Berlin.
§ Mr. MayhewI do not think that my hon. Friend is contesting the idea of a joint N.A.T.O. policy. Can we not be more discriminatory in this matter? How is it possible to allow East Germans, with the maximum publicity, to compete in the winter Olympic Games and to cut out a visit of this kind? May we not have a sensible dicriminatory policy which does not amount to the recognition of East Germany but which allows East German people to visit the West if they wish to do so?
§ Mr. MathewAs the hon. Member knows. a number of visits take place. The policy is very sensibly applied. I refer him to the statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs which explained which visits are permitted.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIs it not a little misleading to describe this policy as being a protest against the building of the Berlin wall? Is it not exactly the same policy as has been followed by the N.A.T.O. Powers consistently since 1948, long before the building of the Berlin wall and because of the suggested influence which it might have on some indirect recognition of East Germany?
§ Mr. MathewThe hon. Member knows the history of this as well as I do. These restrictions are agreed N.A.T.O. policy which is being applied as a protest against the Communist interference with freedom of movement and the building of the wall.