asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the Council of Ministers of the European Community.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and I meet Foreign Ministers of the Six fairly frequently. With the completion of the negotiations we have no present plans to meet the council as such.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the view expressed in Brussels last week about the possible inability of Britain to pay the bill for entry into the Common Market? If this matter is raised in the Council of Ministers, will my right hon. and learned Friend say that in Britain that view is largely shared?

That sounds to me wildly improbable. I have not heard a suggestion of that kind and I do not foresee a difficulty of that kind. If it were to arise, we would face it in the ordinary way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how paragraph 101 of the White Paper, Command Paper No. 4715, is affected by Article 135, paragraph 3, of Command Paper No. 4862-I, in so far as exports of agricultural, horticultural and pastoral foodstuffs from Australia to Great Britain are concerned.

With regard to trade in agricultural products, paragraph 101 of Cmnd. 4715 refers to arrangements applicable during the transitional period for third countries. Article 135 of the Act annexed to the Instruments of Accession to the Treaties of the European Communities relates exclusively to intra-Community trade.

Can the Government give an assurance that there will be some protection in the treaty against possible dislocation of trade in Australian dairy produce which was promised in paragraphs 86 and 101 of the White Paper?

My hon. Friend should look at Protocol 16 of the Act of the Conference. He will see that this is relevant to his Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the work of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress made by the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia; and whether he is still satisfied that full and free political expression is being allowed to all Rhodesians of all races.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the activities of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the work of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

The Commissioners are continuing their operations in different parts of the country. In a statement issued on 7th February, Lord Pearce said that in certain circumstances he might have to conclude that there have been infringements of the agreement that normal political activities would be permitted during the test of acceptability. My right hon. Friend has made representations to Mr. Smith about the matters to which Lord Pearce referred. Lord Pearce none the less still believes that the commission can usefully continue with its work, and Her Majesty's Government accept his judgment on this.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the two months' delay in sending out the Pearce Commission may prove fatal to the settlement terms? What plans do the Government have in the event of a "No" by the Africans?

I do not think there was any undue delay, although I know that my hon. Friend has held this view. It is far too early to give a view about what should be done in the event of such a reply from Lord Pearce, and I therefore feel that we must await the outcome of the Commission before reaching a conclusion.

Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government have already made it clear that irrespective of what Lord Pearce and his Commission say, the Government intend to carry out the agreement that has been reached between Mr. Ian Smith and the Foreign Secretary? May we have an undertaking that if the Pearce Commission says that African opinion is against the proposals, the Government will continue with sanctions?

In the first part of that supplementary question the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong; he makes a completely inaccurate assumption. We must await the reply from Lord Pearce and decide what to do in the light of his report.

Does not the fact that President Kaunda, unlike Mr. Smith, has found it necessary to lock up practically the entire Opposition show that it is very difficult to have in that part of Africa normal political activity as we understand it here without relapse into intimidation, violence and confusion?

Nonsense.

It is not nonsense. It is a fact.

I think it is fair to say, in answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, that ideas about normal political activity are certainly different in this country from what they are in parts of Africa. I really do not believe that I can add anything at this stage in reply to the second part.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Her Majesty's Government still have responsibility for Rhodesia? Does he agree that the treatment of the Todds is utterly disgraceful? Is it not about time that decent people in that country, white and black, were encouraged by a statement from the British Government condemning the unscrupulous renegades there? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that sanctions and everything else that can possibly be imposed on the illegal régime is imposed in the name of British democracy and all for which this House stands?

There is a later Question specifically about the Todds. I cannot accept the extreme views which the hon. Gentleman is expressing.

Extreme?

We are seeking to find an honourable settlement to the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Frost Programme on television last night Mr. Smith was shown as being evasive and shifty and a pathological liar? What reliance can this or any Government plan on the word of such a man? What steps are we taking, like the New Zealand Government, to condemn the attitude of the Smith régime towards the Todds?

I am afraid that I did not have the pleasure of seeing the programme to which the hon. Member refers. We are concerned with the proposals for a settlement negotiated by my right hon. Friend, and it is with this that we are dealing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Pearce himself has now publicly condemned the Smith régime for breaking its promise to the British Government to allow normal political activities? In the case of the Todds and the Chinamanos, can the right hon. Gentleman say what representations the Government have made in the light of Lord Pearce's statement? Further, can he tell the House what progress is being made for the sending of an all-party delegation to Rhodesia, given the fact that it is now several weeks since the Liberal and Labour Parties nominated their representatives?

It is not quite right to say that Lord Pearce has condemned in the terms which the right hon. Gentleman has used. I have indicated that subsequent to that statement by Lord Pearce my right hon. Friend sent a special message to Mr. Smith in relation to the matters raised by the right hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give any indication of the contents of that message.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the Pearce Commission to leave Rhodesia.

It is entirely at the discretion of Lord Pearce to decide how long the Commission needs to remain in Rhodesia. At his Press conference in London on 20th December, Lord Pearce said that he hoped that the work of the Commission on the ground in Rhodesia could be completed in two months.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman have any idea how much longer it will take for the Pearce Commission to make its report? Is no timetable available?

I thought that my right hon. Friend made it very clear that this was left to Lord Pearce. I think it right that it should be left to Lord Pearce rather than that he should be given a specific timetable. It is for him to judge what is needed to carry out as full an investigation as he requires. I do not think I would wish to press him in this respect.

In the light of the astonishing reply given by the Minister a moment ago that Mr. Smith has rejected all the members of the delegation proposed by the Liberal and Labour Parties, and as even if the Commission is there for two months only three weeks will remain for an all-party delegation to go out and observe its work, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he or his right hon. Friend ever intend to stand up for the rights of this House in the matter?

It is rather unwise of the right hon. Gentleman to seek to make that point again and again in this House, as he does, when he knows perfectly well that the Government of which he was a member were quite unable to enforce their wishes in regard to Rhodesia. We have to accept the position as it is on the ground, and it is no good pretending that we are in a position to enforce the Government's views.

rose—

Order. There are still several more Questions on the Order Paper on Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement concerning the imprisonment of Mr. Garfield Todd and Miss Judith Todd by the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

As the House is aware, Mr. Garfield Todd and his daughter have been in detention since 18th January. Lord Pearce stated on 7th February that the Rhodesian authorities have not as yet revealed to the Commission the evidence on which the decision to detain Mr. Todd and his daughter was based.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is an utterly disgraceful reply and that the Government seem to be washing their hands of the whole affair? What representations have they made to the Rhodesia Government about it? Do they approve or disapprove of the situation? What do they think about the treatment being afforded to this very sick man by the Smith régime? Does the Minister damned well care about the whole issue?

The hon. Gentleman should not misrepresent the Government's position. I was giving a factual reply on this point, which is what I thought the hon. Member wanted. The Government regret the detention and have said so many times. We also deplore the absence of any reason for the detention. We have made that abundantly clear. We have made representations on a number of occasions, including a further representation by my right hon. Friend himself towards the end of last week.

Is the Minister aware that on Thursday during business questions the Leader of the House assured me on the point I then raised concerning Mr. Garfield Todd's health and said specifically that new representations would be made? Perhaps I may be allowed again to put the point I then made: that in view of the statement made by Mrs. Todd, which the right hon. Gentleman's Department must have seen, about the serious effect on the deteriorating state of health of Mr. Todd that the degree of detention he is suffering will have, his release on medical and compassionate grounds is now absolutely urgent. Will the right hon. Gentleman fulfil the promise which the Leader of the House gave me last week to make new representations on those lines?

Mr. Todd's health is a matter about which we are very much concerned, and we have already made representations. His daughter's health is the subject of a later Question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also make representations about the Chinamanos? Mr. Chinamano also has a heart condition. His five children, aged between nine and 14, are left alone at home to look after themselves during this period of detention. It really is unforgivable if we are to concentrate only on the two white internees as distinct from the two black internees. The usual reply which the Government give about these representations is that they have no power in Rhodesia, but although they may have no power there they do have influence as a result of the present stage of the proposals that have been put forward by both sides for the settlement of the dispute. Do the Government have—

Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to go so far but I can allow him to go no further. In fact, I think that, strictly speaking, this supplementary question does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. I cannot allow the hon. Member to go further.

Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano were directly included in the last representations that were made. There is no question here of differentiating between white and black.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States authorities regarding their decision to endorse the lifting of sanctions against imports into the United States of America of non-ferrous metals from Rhodesia; which metals are affected by this decision; and what was the proportion of total Rhodesian exports of each of the metals affected going to the United States of America in the last full year prior to the unilateral declaration of independence.

On the first part of my Friend's Question the answer is "None, Sir". On my hon. Friend's second and third questions, with permission, I am circulating such details as are available in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure that these details will be inspected by hon. Members on both sides with great interest. Can he tell the House whether the Government have any plans for moving the Beira Patrol to the mouth of the Hudson River?

I do not think that there is any proposal by the Government to make any changes in present dispositions in regard to sanctions until we hear the outcome of the proposals and the report of the Pearce Commission.

Is the Minister aware that his reply, "None", is quite staggering? Will he confirm that Rhodesia is a British responsibility; that the reference was made by the predecessor Government to the United Nations; that mandatory sanctions were imposed by the Security Council and have never been revoked; that the United States is in breach of these mandatory sanctions, and that no representations whatever have been made by the Government?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's surprise, but when one considers the massive evasion of sanctions which has taken place elsewhere I am not prepared to single out for criticism a country which has up to now upheld sanctions to the full and is now making a strictly limited relaxation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common wealth Affairs how many political prisoners are detained without trial in Rhodesia.

My latest information is that the total of those held under ministerial detention orders is 67. That total includes Mr. Todd and his daughter, and Mr. and Mrs. Chinamano. Some people are also being held under 30-day police detention orders, but the Rhodesian authorities have not made available information about the number involved.

The right hon. Gentleman has regretted and deplored, but would he not at least go to the length of protesting and condemning? Would he not send someone to Rhodesia particularly to see Miss Todd—myself if he likes, or someone from this side of the House?

The hon. Gentleman would be locked up, too.

Perhaps so. Let us see whether they have the guts to lock up a Member of this House. Would the right hon. Gentleman put the matter to the test by sending out someone from this side of the House, someone known to Miss Todd and who would be trusted by her to bring back a message to the right hon. Gentleman, especially in view of Mr. Smith's studied ignorance of this matter, as we saw on television last night?

I prefer to leave this to Lord Pearce and his colleagues and to the representations made by my right hon. Friend.

What is the corresponding figure for political prisoners detained in Zambia?

I have no information about that.

Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny that Mr. Smith's statement broadcast on television last night that there were about 1,000 prisoners is an immense departure from the situation that existed when the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Smith reached agreement in their talks in Salisbury? Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the extent of the Pearce Commission's responsibilities? In the House it is always said that the Pearce Commission must decide. When representations are made to the Commission one is referred back to the House. I left nine questions with Lord Justice Pearce over two weeks ago. One of them related to the number of detainees and whether representations had been made. I am still awaiting a reply. Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that I will get a reply from the Pearce Commission?

I have just given a specific reply about the number of detainees. Three different categories are involved: the detainees for which I have given the figure of 67; those detained under the 30-day arrangement, figures for which I have not been given; and others which must be included in the figure I am told that Mr. Smith gave on television. I am told that many of those were people arrested in connection with last month's riots. Many have been tried. Some have been convicted and some have been released.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by how much he estimates that Rhodesian imports and exports have been reduced annually since the unilateral declaration of independence as a result of sanctions.

According to Rhodesian statistics, the value of both imports and exports fell sharply after the imposition of sanctions. The value of imports had virtually recovered by 1970, the latest year for which figures are available. Exports had also risen again from £107 million in 1968 to £153 million in 1970, although this was still substantially below the 1965 figure.

In view of the drop in the figures which the Minister has given, will he acknowledge that it was sanctions, and especially shortages of foreign exchange, which alone brought Mr. Smith to the negotiating table? If the Pearce Commission brings back the answer "No", will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the full maintenance of sanctions is the only policy, short of military intervention, which can extract real concessions from a police State dictator?

The hon. Gentleman had better look at the figures which I shall be publishing, and I think he will see that although sanctions were effective in the early days they have been substantially eroded according to the figures available at the present time. Therefore, although they have had their effect in helping to bring about the discussions, they are one aspect of the matter but I would not think they are the whole.

Could my right hon. Friend say whether such reductions as have been achieved have been achieved as a result of sacrifices in regard to British exports and imports and those of others who have obeyed sanctions? Could he give comparable figures to show how they have been maintained in the case of France, Germany and Japan, for instance?

I cannot, without notice, give the other figures to which my hon. Friend refers, but Britain has loyally observed sanctions up to the hilt. I only wish that others had done the same.

Were the figures given at constant prices? In addition to giving figures about trade, would the right hon. Gentleman also give the figures relating to investment? Is it not essential that we maintain sanctions if the present proposals come to nothing?

The figures were not at constant prices. There will be some degree of inflation, but it is only one part of the story. It is not the whole part. There-is no question that there has been increasing evasion of sanctions, as the hon. Gentleman must know.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information has now been supplied to him by the Pearce Commission regarding the policy of testing opinion on the proposed Rhodesian settlement by unscheduled stops in outlying areas; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. It is for the Pearce Commission to decide the best means of carrying out its task. It will report its findings in due course in its report.

Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Pearce Commission that if the report of its intention to alter its schedule to avoid intimidation at the meetings which it visits is correct. this has two serious disadvantages in the job that the Commission is doing? First, the Commission is accepting the Smith régime's valuation of intimidation as coming on the African side and, secondly, by not telling people where it is going, the Commission will see far fewer people.

As a result of the hon. Gentleman's Question I made specific inquiries and I have no knowledge of any unscheduled stops. The Pearce Commission is making such arrangements as it thinks right with regard to the people it sees. There are accusations of intimidation on both sides. The Pearce Commission has taken note of all this and will bear it in mind in any report that it makes.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the protest which the New Zealand Government have made to the Smith régime about the illegal detention of Mr. Todd and Miss Todd? Can he explain why the British Government have still made no such protest?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present in the Chamber when I answered questions on this matter earlier. I made quite clear our attitude to this and I cannot add to what I then said.

In making inquiries of the Pearce Commission as to its method of work, did Her Majesty's Government ascertain the extent to which the Commission was using a qualitative or quantitative assessment in terms of public opinion? If so, on what basis was the criterion to be established? If not, is it not important that the Minister and the House should know exactly the methods of work of the Commission?

The Commission was given the task to use such means as it thought appropriate. As I understand it, it has used both methods in its investigation, and it should no doubt report fully the methods it has used as well as the result of its investigations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action was taken by the British Ambassador in Madrid to find employment in Spain for the British matador, Mr. Henry Higgins.

In the course of conversation on a social occasion with the Spanish Minister of Tourism, the Ambassador mentioned that he had heard that Mr. Henry Higgins was having some difficulty in obtaining engagements in Spain and he expressed the hope that there was in this no discrimination against a British subject as such.

Is it not the duty of a British ambassador to project British attitudes and the British way of life? How is it that, either officially or unofficially, our man in Madrid should go out of his way to find for a British subject work which is illegal in Britain?

There is no inference to be drawn of the sort which the hon. Member has just drawn. The ambassador was simply interested in helping a British subject who was encountering difficulties in his profession. Bull fighting is not illegal in Spain. As I have said, the ambassador was simply interested in helping a British subject.

Would my hon. Friend agree that Mr. Higgins' talents would be better spent in this country fighting the bull that comes from the Opposition Front Bench?

I have no doubt that Mr. Higgins would certainly enjoy doing that very much.

As I am not a member of the Opposition Front Bench and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals Her Majesty's Government have for resolving the present deadlock in the Israel-Egypt dispute; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government remain ready to help in any way we can to find a way forward. As the House is aware, my right hon. Friend will be visiting Israel in March.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the opening of the Suez Canal would go some way towards reducing tension between Egypt and Israel, and that, in order to do this, Israel should move perhaps 10 miles eastwards from the canal and Egyptian missiles should be removed from the canal zone? Once the canal is open, may we look for a reduction in the price of oil to this country?

I am sure that my hon. Friend's proposal is laudable. Indeed this was the basis of the United States' proposal put forward and pursued energetically last year, from March onwards. We indicated that we should be perfectly willing to support any proposal of that kind if results could be achieved. Unfortunately, so far it has not been possible to make any progress in this matter. On the last point, it would be some time before we could hope to arrive at that situation.

Do the Government consider that the Israeli Government's policy of permanent occupation and development of part of the Golan Heights and the exploitation of certain resources in Sinai, all with the appearance of permanency, is a blot on attempts to find a peaceful solution? Do the Government still base their policy on the Security Council resolution of November, 1967?

Yes. The last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question covers this point. It is on resolution 242 of the Security Council that we base our position. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, that resolution calls for withdrawal from the occupied territories is a matter subject to dispute. But this is the essence of the problem.

I trust that in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths), the right hon. Gentleman is not accepting the statement made by my hon. Friend in the preliminary to his question as there is no evidence whatever that the Israelis are in permanent occupation of these areas. Will the right hon. Gentleman pursue the line suggested by his hon. Friend, as the Israelis have now made it evident that they are willing for partial agreement, to begin with, based upon a withdrawal from the Suez Canal?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I seldom accept the preliminaries of any question put from the Opposition side of the House. On the specific matter, we have to look very carefully at the latest comments from the Israelis, but we have a long way to go in making progress. I have discussed this matter with Dr. Jarring on a number of occasions. I am most anxious to make progress but there is not enough give in the situation yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek an early meeting of Foreign Ministers of member nations of the Central Treaty Organisation.

No, Sir. Ministers of the CENTO countries are due to meet in London in May for the annual Ministerial Council. My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be leading the British delegation.

Does my hon. Friend believe that maintenance of an effective collective security system in the Middle East is of prime importance, as Soviet influence is growing in the Western Indian Ocean? In the course of the conference in May, will he try to ascertain from the Pakistan representatives what their attitude will be to the CENTO alliance since the change of Government in Pakistan?

We agree that CENTO is extremely important and, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said in the House on 31st January, we hope that Pakistan will continue to be a member of the organisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has now received from the Government of Guatemala with respect to current British Army and Royal Navy exercises in the area of British Honduras; and what reply he has sent.

The Guatemalan authorities made representations to Her Majesty's Consul in Guatemala City about these exercises. British Honduras is, of course, a British dependent territory and Her Majesty's Consul has been instructed to make clear to the Guatemalan Government that the movement of troops in British territory is a matter for Her Majesty's Government. The movements in question were part of a long planned exercise in the Caribbean area.

May we at least have a guarantee from the Minister that there will be no more flamboyant exercises of this sort in what is a highly sensitive area? Second, if it has now been proved so easy to move troops, aircraft carriers and so on to British Honduras in such numbers and at such short notice, why is it not possible to give a defence guarantee to the British Honduran Government if it became independent?

I can only assume from that supplementary question that the hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. As I said, this was part of a long planned exercise. That is why it was possible to do it with speed. It has nothing to do with flamboyance. This is a properly planned exercise still going on in the Caribbean area. There is always a commitment in regard to British Honduras. We retain troops in British Honduras and we intend to continue to do so as long as we have a responsibility there.

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving wider publicity in future to these annual troop movements? These were widely known in the area months before the incident occurred.

We will see what we can do to give wider publicity. Information had been given in the area, as my hon. Friend says.

Is it not the case that the participation of the carrier "Ark Royal" in these exercises had not been notified in advance, not even to the Government of British Honduras, and the people of British Honduras were widely reported to be disturbed by some of the activities carried out? Was not this a propaganda stunt by the carrier lobby in the Ministry of Defence? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to persuade the Secretary of State for Defence to re-establish political control over the Services in these sensitive areas?

That is a very strange supplementary question. There is no basis for it. These exercises, including the participation of the aircraft carrier, had been planned in the area. The aircraft carrier is still in the area carrying out these exercises. This had nothing to do with any lobby in regard to any particular type of armament. The right hon. Gentleman is hopelessly wrong about this, as he usually is.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants of grades one to four there are in his Department; and how many of these are women.

There are 501 officers in grades one to four of the Diplomatic Service and equivalent specialist grades. Nine of these are women.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not rather surprising that of 501 officers only nine are women? Will he look into the arrangements which are made for recruiting to ensure that women have a fair share of the number of jobs which are going? Would it not improve his own working conditions if he were to do so?

It is in practice difficult for a married woman to reconcile the obligation of mobility accepted by all members of the Diplomatic Service with family life and a husband's career. Consequently; women members of the service usually resign on marriage, and this factor largely accounts for the small number of women in the senior grades. However. resignation is not obligatory, provided that the woman can continue to accept the obligations of the service. There is no bias in the selection process for the Diplomatic Service run under the auspices of the Civil Service Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to seek to pay an official visit to the Seychelles in the near future.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the future political relationship of the Seychelles with the United Kingdom is causing a considerable amount of political dissent in the Seychelles? Would not a Ministerial visit do much to clear the air?

The present constitution of the Seychelles has been in operation for only just over 12 months. It is reasonable to see how it will work out. I am aware of the desire of the people of the Seychelles to have a close association with Britain, which is heartily reciprocated.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the desire of the great majority of the people of Seychelles for closer ties with Britain on a permanent basis? Will my hon. Friend consider ways and means of achieving this?

These considerations are in our minds. It is, perhaps, early days to make further progress in this direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for the future of the British Ambassador's residence in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Her Majesty's Embassy in Brazil will move early this year from Rio de Janeiro to Brasilia. We cannot yet take a final decision on the future of the residence in Rio de Janeiro since there will be a continuing need for the ambassador to spend substantial periods of the year in that city. Plans for the longer term are under study in the light of recent reports by Diplomatic Service inspectors.

When my hon. Friend makes a decision on this matter, will he bear in mind that with the British Ambassador moving to Brasilia there is scope for an imaginative decision on the future of the British residence in Rio de Janeiro? In view of the growing importance of Brazil as a trading partner with Great Britain and of the enormous fund of good will towards this country, will my hon. Friend consider using this building as both a trading and a cultural centre for Great Britain?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is a very important building in Rio de Janeiro, recently completed. We will bear closely in mind the considerations my hon. Friend has put forward in finding a future use for the building.

In the light of recent events in Brazil, will the hon. Gentleman look again at the question who determines foreign policy vis-à-vis Brazil? Is it the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is in charge of that matter.

Can we have an assurance that the residence will remain in British hands and not be sold or handed over to anybody else, because it is a magnificent monument to the late Ernest Bevin?

The building is indeed, as my hon. Friend says, a magnificent monument, and we must be rather careful about how it is used in the future. It is rather too large for our ordinary use once the main embassy has moved to Brasilia, but we will have a continuing need of it for a few years yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Belgian Government about persistent breaches of the 6-mile limit by Belgian trawlers off Brighton and the Sussex coast.

I have no evidence of persistent breaches of the Emile limit by Belgian trawlers. The circumstances under which one Belgian skipper was charged for stowage of gear offences on 31st January were described to the House by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 3rd February in reply to my hon. Friend.—[Vol. 830, c. 192.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the offshore fishermen of Brighton and Sussex will regard that as a most unsatisfactory reply? On 26th January a number of Belgian trawlers were seen by the two night watchmen on the Palace Pier in Brighton actually fishing in the area between the two piers. In the light of this and other instances when Belgian trawlers have been fishing within the Emile limit, will my hon. Friend reconsider his reply?

Since January, 1971, only seven skippers of Belgian vessels have been charged for offences within British fishing limits. Of these seven, one was for fishing within the 6-mile limit. The remainder were for conservation offences. These figures relate to the whole coast of England and Wales, not merely to the Sussex coast. However, if my hon. Friend has any other evidence that he wishes to give me, I shall be very glad to look at it.

Surely the Minister will accept that the problem is that of catching people. The fact that there are few charges indicates not that there are few breaches, but that there is a lack of success in catching people. Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of discussing with our E.E.C. neighbours, now that the fishing regulations have been agreed, the possibility of joint arrangements for fishery protection so that joint responsibility is taken for the respect of different national limits?

There is no doubt that the area is attractive to foreign fishermen and it will benefit from the increased provisions for coastal fishery protection which were announced by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy on 20th January. We will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

If this is a foretaste of what can, and possibly will, happen if we join the E.E.C., will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the feelings of the House and the need to have not merely more fisheries protection vessels patrolling, but helicopters to warn the vessels below of what is happening?

The hon. Gentleman has not got this matter quite right. The allegations about what has been occurring have nothing to do with any application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have recently taken as a Co-Chairman of the 1962 Geneva Agreement guaranteeing the neutrality and integrity of Laos.

We have recently circulated to the other signatory Governments of the 1962 Geneva Agreement a letter from the Prime Minister of Laos protesting at North Vietnamese military aggression in his country. We were obliged to do this unilaterally because the Soviet Co-Chairman would not agree to joint circulation.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that North Vietnamese troops who are found in Cambodia must be using Laos to get there, and, as there is no local support for them in Cambodia, would he use that as an additional reason for continuing his good work?

I agree with my hon. Friend's comment. We have said in our covering note that Her Majesty's Government consider that the activities of North Vietnamese troops in Laos constitute a flagrant violation of Laotian neutrality and of the 1962 Geneva Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the question of nuclear defence at his next meeting with the French Government.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has no current plans for a meeting with the French Government.

Did the hon. Gentleman note the views of the Prime Minister on the arguments of M. Deniau, the E.E.C. Commissioner, in favour of supplying our military nuclear technique to France? Did the Prime Minister dismiss this as merely wanting to relax the McMahon Act? What other purpose can there be in relaxing the McMahon Act except to provide this military technique to France?

I think the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the questions he has put to me are really for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. However, the Prime Minister's position on the matter of an Anglo-French deterrent in trust for Europe is well known.

While matters of nuclear defence are obviously important, would not the Under-Secretary agree that the present time is particularly auspicious for a move forward towards greater cooperation with France in foreign policy, whether bilaterally or within the context of the Ten? Could he raise this matter with the French Government?

I think my hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be meeting President Pompidou in the very near future, and no doubt all these matters will be discussed between them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what attitude the British delegation to the forthcoming meeting of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development will take on the subjects of compensatory finance for developing countries suffering unexpected shortfalls in export earnings and the linking of special drawing rights in the International Monetary Fund to development finance.

Instructions to the British delegation are still being discussed, but the Supplementary Financial Measures Scheme put forward in 1964 has attracted little support amongst donor countries and the problems it was intended to ease have been tackled in other ways. The question of linking special drawing rights with aid is being studied by the International Monetary Fund.

Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise the urgent need of using U.N.C.T.A.D. III as an opportunity for reconciling the interests of the developing countries with those of the developed world? Since it has been a problem in the last 20 years that the share of export earnings which developing countries have had has been declining, is it not vitally important that Britain should take the initiative, not necessarily in exactly the same way as was done at U.N.C.T.A.D. II but in putting forward some proposals for overcoming the problem?

The general purpose that the hon. Gentleman mentioned is obviously the main purpose of the U.N.C.T.A.D. III meeting: that the developed and the developing countries should meet to discuss these things and make constructive suggestions. In fact, there have been a number of developments since these measures were suggested, particularly the supplementary financial measures, and the hon. Gentleman will know that the I.D.A. now plays a much more important part. Its resources have been trebled and there have been other ways in which the necessary finance has been made available to the developing countries in those circumstances.

Is it not regrettable that the United States has not put into effect the generalised preference scheme which was agreed at the last U.N.C.T.A.D. meeting? Are Her Majesty's Government considering what can usefully be done at the forthcoming conference, or before, to encourage the United States to do so?

That is a matter for the United States Government. This will also be a matter to be discussed at the meeting.

In view of the tremendous importance of the forthcoming U.N.C.T.A.D. meeting—which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is held only every four years—and in view of the increasing urgency attached to trading with developing countries, could the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper on the Government's proposals for their own approach at the U.N.C.T.A.D. meeting?

I will certainly consider that.

What is the Government's present thinking on the desirability and practicability of linking development aid to special drawing rights?

As I said in my original answer, this matter is being examined by the International Monetary Fund. I do not wish to be evasive in response to the hon. Gentleman's question but I think it would be difficult to state an attitude until we know the kind of ideas which may emerge from those studies. When we see them, we shall consider what our attitude should be. I should not myself be opposed to a link if the basis for such a link could be established in the International Monetary Fund study.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proportion of British aid in the last financial year was tied to the purchase of British goods and services; what proposals he has for changing this proportion; and what steps he is taking to seek to persuade other donor countries to act in unison in this matter.

On the basis explained in our memorandum to the Development Assistance Committee, the proportion in 1970 was 64 per cent. I have no immediate proposals for changing our tying rules, but we are considering with other members of the committee what action might be possible now that negotiations for general untying have been suspended.

As balance of payments difficulties were always one of the main reasons for the tying of aid, and since those difficulties have now been largely overcome, is there not an opportunity now drastically to reduce the proportion of tied aid, particularly as projects in developing countries with a large element of local cost tend to be neglected under the present arrangements, even though they may be best for those countries from the development point of view?

If he examines what we have recently been doing, the hon. Gentleman will find that we have been reasonably flexible in relation to local costs. I recently discussed this with the Tunisian Government and the Mauritian Government and on both occasions we were fairly forthcoming on the local cost question. In general—I have said this publicly many times—I should like to see progress in untying, but I do not believe that it is possible to do this unilaterally; it is something upon which all donors have to agree together, and then it will be to the advantage of both this country and the developing countries.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House and to British industry that in negotiating aid to developing countries generally, and to Pakistan in particular, he will not sacrifice the interests of British industries and those who work in them in pursuing this highly laudable aim?

The interests of the developing countries and of British industry are both extremely important, and neither must be neglected.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now resume commodity aid to Pakistan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the Government's aid proposals for Bangladesh.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he now proposes to give to Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1972.

The Government intend to offer immediate assistance to the Government of Bangladesh by providing a loan to finance all the outstanding contracts which have been placed with British firms by Bangladesh importers under previous aid loans and a further loan to take the place of the British loan money allocated to East Pakistan and not yet committed to contracts. The two loans amount to £4,835,000. We are also disbursing our existing loans to Pakistan, and a balance of nearly £3 million is still available. We have not yet taken decisions about new assistance for Pakistan.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full and informative answer. Does he agree that the resumption of commodity aid on a substantial scale to West Pakistan would do more at the present time to improve relations between the United Kingdom and Pakistan than any other measure, as Pakistan's reserves of foreign currency dwindled seriously during the crisis of the past year?

As the House knows, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary attaches the greatest importance to the resumption of these relations. We shall certainly consider the resumption of aid, or the provision of new aid, for Pakistan once the Pakistan Government have decided how to reorganise their economy and to deal with their debt moratorium which is, I think, the urgent matter in this case.

Following the recent conflict, the economic situation in Bangladesh is even worse than it is in Pakistan. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many people in this country would think it right if virtually all the economic aid which has been earmarked in the past for Pakistan now went to Bangladesh?

It was with that kind of consideration in view that I asked one of my officials to go out to Bangladesh—I hope that he is arriving today—and to report to me on what he thinks the urgent needs are.

Apart from that advice and assistance and, in particular, the loan aid to which the Minister referred, there is the problem of disrupted communications, especially the breakdown of bridges, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has drawn attention. Have the Government any plans to give practical assistance, by the use of the military, for example, or in any other way, in this connection?

I understand from a number of people who have recently been to Bangladesh—in particular, the right hon. Member for Stechford—that the greatest need is to restore communications. It was with this in mind that we sent out Mr. Cross, an expert in bridge construction and reconstruction, who is there at the present time. We are looking also at plans in order to investigate the possibility of direct and speedy British help in the creation and recreation of communications which is so necessary now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will send an expert on cooperatives to Bangladesh to ascertain the aid necessary to restore the Co-operative Training Institute and field education for co-operative officials and non-officials, to examine the co-operative movement in general and to advise on supporting action.

I have offered technical assistance to the Government of Bangladesh, but I have had no request yet for the services of an expert on co-operatives. If I receive such a request I shall do my best to meet it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the most likely way in which Bangladesh will be able to get on its own feet is by the people themselves, through their own mutual institutions such as co-operatives, being able to reconstitute their agricultural and agrarian systems? As the right hon. Gentleman's adviser is over there to look at the situation, might it not be possible to increase the amount of support in this field so as to help the people of Bangladesh quickly to get their credit, marketing and purchasing facilities back to what they were before the crisis?

Not only shall I be looking at that matter from here; the official to whom I referred in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is examining the whole questnon of what technical assistance is necessary in Bangladesh, and obviously this will be one of the matters which he will discuss if the desire exists in Bangladesh for such a person to go out.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said on the general question of resumption of aid to Pakistan and Bangladesh which we warmly welcome. As his official will be reporting to him, presumably, on his return next week, on this and related questions, including the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), namely, the urgent need for transportation relief measures, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make a fairly full statement when his official has reported to him so that we may know precisely what the relief position is likely to be?

I shall do my best to find an opportunity to do what the right hon. Lady asks.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the immense need for books in Bangladesh since, so often, the occupants of homes where books were found were murdered?

There is a need for almost anything, books and everything else. I shall do my best to meet the many needs that there are, though I fear that there will be far more needs than we can possibly meet.

What the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is most encouraging, and we are grateful for it. In the light of the great interest in this matter, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman acknowledges, will he put that problem high on the agenda in his inquiries regarding how we can help Bangladesh?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador to Nepal to give assistance to the Gurkha resettlement organisation in Nepal.

My Department has for some time undertaken projects to help former Gurkhas, and it is now planning an expansion of this programme.

I am grateful for that reply. Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been some difficulty in sending out the various things which are needed by the mission, such things as seeds and so on? Will he take it that any help which he can give will be gratefully received by this well worth while mission?

I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. I think he will be satisfied with what we are trying to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) in view of the fact that, owing to the terms of the United Kingdom and Federation of Malaya Public Officers Agreement, 1959, the Government of Malaysia have reduced the pensions they awarded and pay in Singapore to retired expatriate officers recruited by the British Government who served on the Malayan Establishment in Malaya and Singapore before those countries were independent, if he will undertake that the shortfall in their pensions will be made good to these pensioners;

As there is no shortfall in the sterling value of these pensions, the question of Her Majesty's Government making compensatory payments does not arise.

As the officers concerned had their pensions reduced by about 14 per cent. because the British Government signed the agreement with Malaysia and subsequently devalued the pound, does not my right hon. Friend feel that the Government have a moral responsibility to make up the deficit if the Malaysian Government will not?

The Public Officers Agreement with the Malaysian Government ties all pensions paid externally to the rate of exchange prevailing at the date of the agreement. That means that anyone living in Malaysia or Britain receives a pension as before in the same sterling terms. The difficulty arises with people living in Singapore. Neither the previous Government nor the present Government have ever undertaken to make special arrangements to protect all pensioners from the effect of devaluation, and I cannot do so.