asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will insist, as a condition of Britain's entry into the Common Market, that Commonwealth products shall continue to enjoy their present freedom of access to this country or, alternatively, shall be offered other outlets by lowering Common Market tariffs or other means acceptable to the Commonwealth countries concerned.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement of 10th October in which I suggested how the problem of Commonwealth products might be split up into its different components and how each of these might be treated if the vital interests of the Commonwealth were to be safeguarded. In reply to a Question on 7th March, I explained what progress we had made in dealing with the various groups of Commonwealth problems.

That was a long time ago. In view of the fears still being voiced, with good reason, by the Deputy-Prime Minister of Australia in London as recently as last night, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that any attempt to bulldoze, hoodwink or prejudice Canada, Australia or any other Commonwealth country will be regarded as a gross betrayal and will drag the Government's reputation down to an even lower level than it has already reached?

There is no question of the Commonwealth being treated in the way that the hon. Member has just read out. We have given the fullest assurances to the Commonwealth and to Parliament to which we will adhere. The Deputy-Prime Minister of Australia was pointing out certain consequences that would follow if no special arrangements of the kind which I have described were arrived at. That, of course, is a different situation.

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not accept an arrangement which is of a purely temporary and transitional nature and will insist on comparable outlets being assured for an indefinite period?

I have repeatedly assured the House that in these negotiations we are dealing not only with the short or transitional period of the Community, but also with the long-term and Common Market period.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is aware of the damage being done to the export trade as a result of delay arising from discussion on the Common Market application by the United Kingdom; and when he expects to report to Parliament, with a view to facilitating exports.

I am not aware that our export trade is being damaged in this way, though I realise that the outcome of the Brussels negotiations will affect the plans of all those in the United Kingdom concerned with exports. That is why I am anxious to press on with the negotiations as quickly as possible. I cannot yet say when their outcome will be sufficiently clear to enable me to report to Parliament.

Is the Lord Privy Seal not aware that one of the largest exporting firms in Scotland has had its orders cancelled by a firm in one of the Common Market countries on the ground that entry will obviously affect prices? Does he not realise that the quicker the Government make up their mind and let the House and industry know what the position is the better it will be for Scottish exporters in general?

I was not aware of the particular case the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. If it affected prices it could only, of course, be to bring prices down because of the lowering of tariff barriers. I hope all firms in this country will continue to use all their efforts in the export trade to Commonwealth countries, to the countries of E.F.T.A. and to third countries of the world, quite apart from any plans which they can make for exports to the European Community.

Will the Lord Privy Seal tell us—and take a little longer perhaps than usual—what is the real, overwhelming reason for the desire of the Government to join this Community at all?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will read my statement of 10th October.

Will my right hon. Friend not agree that our export trade depends on our goods being at the right price and of the right quality irrespective of whether we enter the Common Market or not?

asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the recent official statement of Dr. Mansholt, a vice-president of the European Commission, on this matter, if he will give an assurance that he will not recommend the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market upon a basis whereby the major safeguards for Commonwealth interests are limited to a period of five years.

Her Majesty's Government fully adheres to the assurances already given to Parliament and to the Commonwealth countries. I have therefore nothing to add to the reply I gave to a Question from my hon. Friend on 19th March.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is disturbing to find that Professor Hallstein, Dr. Mansholt and the French Foreign Secretary have all gone on record as saying that permanent safeguards cannot be provided for the Commonwealth? Will my right hon. Friend take note of the words of the Minister of Trade for Australia last night when he said that the Commonwealth would not be satisfied with the tranquillisers of some temporary safeguards?

I am fully aware of what my hon. Friend has said. I repeat what I said earlier—it is that in this matter we are negotiating both on short-term and long-term. Dr. Mansholt, when he spoke in London, was giving his personal views about certain aspects of agricultural policy. We are concerned with the Commonwealth interest over the whole field.

Does not the recent speech of the Leader of the House, stating that Britain's entry into the Common Market would be the main issue at a General Election, provide a clear indication that the Government have decided to enter the Common Market on any terms? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Is it fair to the Lord Privy Seal that speeches of this kind should be made when he is negotiating with the Six?

The speech by my right hon. Friend to which the hon. Member refers implies nothing of the kind. It is quite conceivable that there could be a General Election even if we were not able to negotiate arrangements to go into the Common Market.

While there would bound to be changes in the pattern of Commonwealth trade with this country as a result of our going into the Common Market, may I ask whether the objects of the negotiations should not be to ensure that the Commonwealth has as great, or possibly a greater, opportunity of trade with Europe as a whole, including Great Britain, as it now has?

Yes, Sir. The pattern of Commonwealth trade is changing all the time, quite regardless of the negotiations we undertake or whether or not we enter the European Economic Community. That is bound to happen with lively economies and developing countries. Naturally, we should like to see the Commonwealth have greater opportunities in the European countries. If the proposals which I have put forward are acceptable, they will definitely widen the opportunities of Commonwealth countries in Europe.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is yet in a position to place in the Library copies of the final text in French of the agreement reached by the European Economic Community on agricultural policy, together with an English translation of the text.

The final texts of the fourteen agriculture documents were approved by the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community on 4th April. They will be published in the OFFICIAL JOURNAL of the Communities in due course. Meanwhile, advance copies of the French texts are being made available to us as quickly as the work of reproduction and checking permits. The texts of nine documents have ben received so far (together with two supplementary documents) and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. We expect to place the other five texts in the Library today. An English translation will be placed in the Vote Office as soon as possible.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if the words "as soon as possible" in the English translation will not be extended to mean a matter of weeks but will mean merely a matter of days?

I could not give an undertaking that it will be only a matter of days, but it will be very soon, and as each document is completed in turn we will make it available in the Vote Office.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what examination has been made by his Department of the probable effects of Britain's entry into the Common Market on the film industry; and if he will publish the conclusions reached.

The European Economic Community has not yet adopted a common films policy. It is therefore not possible to judge at this stage what effect, if any, our entry into the Community would have on the British film industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the fact-finding commission set up by the E.E.C. last year on the film industry has now reported to the Governments of the Six and that it has been published that the Governments of the Six have been asked within the next month to make their proposals about a common films policy of the E.E.C.? Would he, therefore, ask whether the Government may have a copy of this fact-finding report on which the policy will be based so that they may be able to put forward proposals in the negotiations?

If this matter reaches a stage of proposals being formulated during the negotiations, I hope that we shall follow the customary practice in these negotiations so far, which is to obtain copies of the documents concerned and to express our views upon them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will add to the delegation in Brussels which is negotiating about Britain's entry into the Common Market representatives of British film producers who are competent to advise on the measures necessary to safeguard the interests of the industry and to foster its growth.

No, Sir. It would not be practicable to attach to the delegation representatives of all the many industries whose products are being or will be discussed.

In the light of the Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman to the previous Question, may we take it that the Government will now make representations to ensure that when the documents are brought out they are provided to them in order that the experts in the film industry in this country may have an opportunity in the next few weeks of being able to formulate some proposals to put forward?

On the delegation at Brussels we have a representative of the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade is in close contact with the British film industry over this matter. As for proposals, as I have said, we shall follow the normal procedure in these negotiations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the minimum requirement Her Majesty's Government are seeking in the negotiations with members of the European Economic Community in respect of preferential treatment for the entry of primary products from New Zealand, Australia and Canada, respectively, into the United Kingdom.

No negotiator can be expected to announce in public his minimum terms for agreement on any particular subject.

Is not there some indication that the right bon. Gentleman has not made up his mind about the minimum requirements? If he does not know how he stands in this regard, how can he negotiate successfully? May I have an assurance from him that he will allow neither himself nor his colleagues in the Government to be manœuvred by any of the members of the Six into a compromise which operates to the detriment of this country and of the Commonwealth?

In his time the right hon. Gentleman has carried out a good many negotiations. I cannot believe that he ever announced in public what his minimum terms would be. Answering the latter part of his question, we have every confidence that we shall not be outmanœuvred in the negotiations.

Is the Minister aware that when I entered into negotiations on behalf of any British Government with which I was associated, I was not prepared to compromise if the compromise meant any detriment to or deterioration of the prestige and power of this country?

Every negotiation consists of a compromise of some degree or another, otherwise it would not be negotiation, it would be a series of ultimata. What we have to do is to look at the balance which we achieve on the whole solution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent it is a condition of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market that British foreign and defence policy, including North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments, shall be co-ordinated with that of the Six.

I put forward Her Majesty's Government's views on these matters in the statement I made to the Western European Union on 10th April, copies of which are available in the Vote Office.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if we were to go into the Common Market the Government would be as free as they are today to pursue a foreign policy for a European settlement—for instance, through disengagement on the lines advocated by the Opposition—in spite of the known objections of their partners in the Common Market to any such policy?

The Treaty of Rome has no effect on foreign policy. At the same time, the members of the three Communities have been discussing together what political arrangements should be set up alongside the Communities. I was dealing with that matter in my speech of 10th April. But the effect on foreign policy depends on the nature of the proposals reached by the Six.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when his speech became available in the Vote Office, and when it leaked into The Times?

I understand that it was available in the Vote Office on Friday of last week.

Does my right hon. hon. Friend agree that, despite the failure of the talks in Paris, there is a need for closer political association between the countries of Western Europe, and that if we succeed in negotiating our way into the Common Market we should be keen to arrive at such a closer political association?

Yes, Sir. I fully expressed this view in the speech I made to Western European Union. This is a matter for the members of the Six, whose Governments are taking part in these talks.

May I say, in answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) a few moments ago, that the text of my speech to Western European Union was released on Friday, but as the House had risen it was not available in the Vote Office until Monday?

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct the United Kingdom delegates on the Trusteeship Committee of the United Nations to cooperate with the United Nations in its request for information about the situation in Southern Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his talks with members of the United Nations Committee on the Liquidation of Colonialism.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's discussions in London with the United Nations Sub-Committee on colonial matters.

asked the Lord Privy Seal the result of his recent official talks with the United Nations' Committee investigating the problems of colonialism.

I will, with permission, answer this Question and Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together, since I take it that in each case the hon. Gentlemen intend reference to the United Nations Committee of Seventeen and its Sub-Committee which recently visited us in London.

Whilst welcoming the fact that the Government have met the members of the Sub-Committee in London, may I ask the Minister to bear in mind that Britain enjoys an immense amount of good will at the United Nations, and deservedly, because of her record in advancing political progress in Colonial Territories? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, seek to use that good will to influence the European minority in Southern Rhodesia to make the kind of changes that are necessary for a peaceful solution there?

Our wish to co-operate with the United Nations has been made clear and has been generally appreciated by the United Nations.

Is the Joint Under-Secretary aware that the members of the Sub-Committee were somewhat disturbed at the refusal of Her Majesty's Ministers to make any gesture even towards meeting their views on Southern Rhodesia? Will he consult his right hon. Friends to see whether, even at this late date, Her Majesty's Government could not adopt one of the courses of action suggested to them by members of the Sub-Committee and at least give the lie to the statement by the Foreign Secretary in another place that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to be influenced in any way in their colonial policy by the views of the United Nations?

The information which was given, both here and in New York, on the facts of the situation in Southern Rhodesia in particular was very full. While expressing the concern which some of them feel, the members of the Sub-Committee made it clear that they recognised both the strict limitations upon the powers of Her Majesty's Government in Southern Rhodesia and the fact that the United Nations should not seek to arrogate to itself the responsibilities of government there.

Has this Subcommittee paid any tribute to British colonialism for ending tribal warfare, slavery and witchcraft and for promoting law and order in so many territories?

The Sub-Committee certainly did pay a tribute to British colonial policy.

In view of the enlightened policy which has been followed by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, does my hon. Friend think that this continual sniping by the opposition in the United Nations can be anything but bad and the means of encouraging extremist elements, both black and white, in that territory?

I certainly agree that one cannot take just one side without knowing the full facts about both sides.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the decision of the Sub-Committee of the Committee of Seventeen of the United Nations to report on the constitutional position of Southern and Northern Rhodesia.

As has been made clear both in New York and to the recent visitors here from the Committee of Seventeen, we recognise the interest of members of the United Nations in the steady progress of our overseas territories. Our sympathy with this interest cannot, however, extend to sharing or shifting our responsibilities.

Yes, but did not the speech of the representative of the United Kingdom go rather further than that? Is it not now obsolete to try to suggest that the United Nations should not intervene in the affairs of dependent counties? Will not the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will take a more up-to-date view of this situation and adjust themselves to the new world?

I think the best thing I can do is to quote what my noble Friend said on this point in another place:

"The United Nations is entitled to information, and we have said that we will give information to the relevant committees of the United Nations. We have also made it clear, however, that we cannot accept resolutions or recommendations, because colonial policy must be a matter for H.M. Government."

Apart from the juridical position, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that having support from the United Nations for British policy, which on the whole is extremely good in Africa in this field, is of the greatest importance if we are to achieve a peaceful transfer of power in these regions? Will he not, therefore, answer the question which I asked him earlier—whether he will seriously consider carrying out some of the proposals that were made to him during the discussions last week by Dr. Jha?

All the conversations and discussions we have had with Dr. Jha and other members of the Sub-Committee will certainly be very carefully considered.

Will my hon. Friend suggest to Dr. Jha and his Sub-Committee that they might look at countries in which the people are not moving towards self-determination in any way, such as Kashmir and the countries behind the Iron Curtain, rather than territories where great strides are being made towards this end?

I think that Dr. Jha and his Sub-Committee appreciate that the British colonial record is a good one, and, indeed, paid tribute to it.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that in taking this attitude Her Majesty's Government are guilty of double dealing? Does he not recall that when Russia cruelly suppressed the rising in Hungary, Her Majesty's Government joined with other nations in demanding that the United Nations should be given the right to go and see what happened? Does he agree that we have no right to demand that the United Nations should be given facilities of that kind in an Iron Curtain country unless we ourselves are prepared to accept the decision of the United Nations when it wants to investigate territories under British control?

I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The very fact that we were hosts to this Sub-Committee in London and gave it the very fullest facts indicates that we are perfectly prepared to discuss these facts and give the fullest information.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make further representations to the Sudan Government to increase pensions payable to former officials of the Sudan Government.

I do not consider that further representations to the Sudan Government would serve any useful purpose at present.

Really, that is a very unsatisfactory answer. Week after week we have the same sort of answer from the Government about this matter. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that these men have served this country as well as the Sudan and that we have a very great responsibility for them?

As my hon. Friend does know, we have already made renewed representations to the Sudanese authorities on this matter and we have recently received a negative reply. Therefore, we have no hope that any further representation will have any success. We certainly agree with my hon. Friend in what he says about the services which these pensioners have given not only to the Sudan but to Britain generally.

Then what are the Government going to do about it, if the Sudan Government do not do anything about it?

As has been said in this House on many occasions, the question of pension increase is a matter entirely for the Sudan Government.

Arising out of the last point made by the Joint Under-Secretary of State, would he have a look at the exchanges which have taken place in this Chamber between hon. Members on this side of the House and the Colonial Secretary and the Commonwealth Secretary about the whole pensions position being reconsidered and about the responsibilities of Her Majesty's Government for these pensioners being looked at in a new light?

Yes, I certainly have seen those exchanges, but I am afraid that I cannot add anything to what has been said by my right hon. Friends in those exchanges.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make a detailed statement of the issues presented to the international commission of inquiry into the "Red Crusader" incident, indicating the submissions made on each of them and the decisions of the commission, and the steps that are being taken on those decisions.

The Commission was requested to investigate the facts of the incident in the terms set out in the Exchange of Notes with the Danish Government of 15th November, 1961. The decisions of the Commission are set out in their report which, as my right hon. Friend told the House on 4th April, has been published by the two Governments and placed in the Library of the House. I should prefer not to comment on the Commission's findings while the report is still under consideration.

While thanking the Joint Under-Secretary of State for such details as he has given, may I ask him if he is aware of the more recent threats by the relevant Danish Minister about further shooting by Danish gunboats at trawlers in certain circumstances, and that therefore the details of that particular incident and of the issues laid before the tribunal and the findings, are of he utmost importance to the British fishing industry, fishermen and owners so that they may know exactly what their rights are and where they stand in their relations with Danish gunboats and the Danish Government?

I was not aware of any such threats. I should be grateful if the hon. and learned Gentleman will let me know what they are.

I will certainly send the hon. Gentleman particulars.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress achieved at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present position at the Geneva Disarmament Conference.

There have now been altogether twenty-three plenary meetings of the Conference, three meetings of the Committee of the Whole, and eight meetings of the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee. The plenary meetings have mainly been occupied with detailed discussion of the preamble to, and the first article of, a draft treaty for general and complete disarmament. The United States Delegation have just tabled a large and detailed document, setting out basic provisions for a Disarmament Treaty. We are very glad that this full explanation of Western proposals has been tabled.

In view of the sympathetic comments by the Minister of State on the proposals put forward by the eight neutral delegates, can we be told that in the view of the Government these proposals constitute a satisfactory basis for a test ban treaty, and, if so, bearing in mind that the United States tests are due to begin at the end of next week, would the Government be prepared to join with the United States Government and the Soviet Government in an agreed treaty on the basis of the proposals of the eight neutral countries?

In the Conference yesterday my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the American representative put a number of questions to the neutral countries which have drawn up these proposals for the purpose of clarifying them, and we must now await the answers from the neutral countries in order to be able to form a judgment on how satisfactory the proposals are.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us, while having absolutely no sympathy with the Soviet attitude on verification, are a bit worried about the reactions to the neutral proposals? Can he tell the House on what sort of points the neutral countries, with their limited experience, can answer these detailed questions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a danger of giving the impression that the Western Powers may be stalling for time while the Conference goes into Easter recess with the Christmas Island tests due to start a few days later? Would it not be more satisfactory to give positive approval on the basis of the proposals of the neutral countries?

There is no question of stalling in this matter, but they are very vital matters for the defence of the West and for our country. The questions put were put by the Minister of State and the American representative and were put as quickly as possible after these proposals were tabled, and they are basic ones about the operation of the proposals. I think the netural countries will be in a position to deal with them.

While the Soviet rejection of the principle of verification is totally indefensible, is there really, in practice, any decisive difference between the British-American plan and the neutrals' plan? If the Soviet Union violates the agreement by continuing testing, would it not also violate agreed provisions for verification? Will the Lord Privy Seal represent to the Americans that it would be a terrible mistake to go ahead with new tests without first examining in the most careful and sympathetic way these proposals put forward by the neutral countries?

I have indicated that we will give them the most careful consideration, and that was the purpose of the questions put yesterday by the two representatives.

Can we take it that this consideration will be of an urgent character in view of the fact that there is only a question of days?

Yes, Sir. We shall give it urgent consideration.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the last resort neutral countries will not be allowed to determine the size, scope, nature and user of British armaments, including the nuclear deterrent?

That is a separate question from this neutral proposal which deals only with tests.

Can we have an assurance that the American tests will be delayed long enough to enable proper consideration to be given to this hopeful new initiative?

I have given the House an undertaking that we shall examine the proposals with the greatest care and urgency. I cannot go further than that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said is not an answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? Are we not to infer cleanly from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that the negotiations are still open, that the door is not finally barred and locked? If that is so, and since Christmas Island is a British territory, could not the right hon. Gentleman indicate that the facilities on Christmas Island would not be readily afforded for atmospheric tests which are those which do not require verification, by common consent? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Would not that be a reasonable thing to do? Is it not clear that once the tests have been made, negotiations thereafter would be extremely difficult?

The position is that the Soviet Government have rejected entirely the principle of verification. These neutral proposals cover this matter and it is necessary to elucidate exactly what is involved in them. There is also the question of awaiting the Soviet reply to the neutral proposals, which has not yet been made. I cannot give further information to the House than I have already given.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had recently with the United States Government about the future of Commonwealth Preference.

My discussions with the United States Government must remain confidential if they are to fulfil their purpose of providing an opportunity for a free and frank exchange of views.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at the Montreal Conference only three years ago Commonwealth countries agreed that Commonwealth Preference was of benefit and should not be weakened or discarded? Will he make that clear to the American Government and anybody else who asks for Commonwealth Preference to be abolished?

Yes, Sir. The United States Government are now well aware of our views.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the destruction of Imperial Preference has been a major object of American policy ever since Mr. Cordell Hull's abortive attempt to conspire with the Japanese in 1921? Will my right hon. Friend also lose no opportunity to make absolutely clear in negotiations with the Americans that we are not yet a colonial subject of the dollar empire and, by the grace of God, never will be?

I know the views put forward by my hon. Friend are held by certain people, but I do not wish to comment upon them. These negotiations are not being carried out with the American Government. At the same time, one must recognise that if they are brought to a successful conclusion there may well be additional discrimination against American trade.

the Lord Privy Seal whether the decision of the European Assembly to describe itself in future as the European Parliament was supported by the United Kingdom delegates; and, in view of this decision, if he will take steps to arrange that the United Kingdom delegates are in future appointed by a resolution of the House and not through party machinery.

Membership of the European Parliamentary Assembly, which at its recent Session decided to change its name to the European Parliament, is confined to representatives of the six member countries of the European Communities, and does not include delegates from the United Kingdom. The second part of the Question does not therefore arise.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why the British plan for controlling tests, without on the spot inspections, through a string of Commonwealth posts in North America, the United Kingdom, Africa, Asia and Australia, was not sub- mitted to the Disarmament Commission at Geneva.

There is no United Kingdom plan of the kind described. What we have proposed is a world-wide network of control posts, as set out in the United Kingdom-United States draft treaty of April, 1961.

Were not proposals on these lines submitted by Sir Solly Zuckerman and Sir William Penny on a visit to Washington which they were satisfied would detect even minor underground tests? These were then opposed by the United States on the ground that they would not be acceptable to Congress and the whole scheme was then dropped and never put forward at Geneva.

No, Sir. I cannot give any indication of the views expressed between scientists during their conversations in Washington.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. George Ball, the United States Under-Secretary of State, on 4th April on the subject of Great Britain's negotiations for entry into the Common Market.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his discussions with Mr. George Ball regarding the conditions of British entry into the Common Market.

I was glad to be able to take advantage of Mr. Ball's recent visit to London by inviting him to exchange views with me on a variety of subjects, including those concerned with international economic relations. Our discussions were confidential.

Arising out of that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that there has been considerable apprehension about these conversations? Will he give an assurance that the Government will not allow the relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth to be altered at the dictate of the United States Government?

There is absolutely no need for apprehension about these conversations. It is absolutely right that we should each have a full opportunity of expressing quite frankly to each other our Governments' views. Of course, there can be absolutely no question of Commonwealth affairs being affected by a dictate of the United States Government, nor is there any question of the United States Government attempting to carry out such a thing.

Have not the United States Government made it clear through Mr. George Ball that British entry into the Common Market will involve, after a transitional period, the disappearance of the Commonwealth system of preferences? Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that this is the case?

No, Sir. Those are not the views that have been expressed to us, and the last part of the question therefore does not arise.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the nature of the assistance which has been given by the British Police Mission in South Vietnam in the preparation and organisation of Operation Sunrise, through which South Vietnamese peasants in guerilla-controlled areas are forcibly moved from their settlements into fortified village camps, while their homes and food stocks are destroyed.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this operation, which involved the forcible movement of 123 families from their homes and the destruction of their homes, with most of the contents, before their eyes, and the burning of their food stocks, was described by the New York Times correspondent on the spot—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I am asking a question. Is the Minister aware that the New York Times correspondent on the spot described this operation as being—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]— based upon the plan operated by the British in Malaya?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to bring about such conditions in the House of Commons as would enable us to hear what is being said?

I would be grateful if hon. Members would be more quiet. I wanted to hear if the hon. Member for Ashfield's supplementary question was going to be in order or no, but I could not hear it. So far, it appears to be an inquisition of the Minister by way of asking whether he is aware that some newspaper has reported something. I would like to hear the rest of the question, if the House will allow me.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulties, but is there not some way in which you can persuade certain hon. Members who habitually make speeches at Question Time to put more concise questions?

It is very much in the general interest that hon. Members should make supplementary questions short. I say so so often that I get very long in saying it myself. Would the hon. Member for Ashfield be good enough to repeat his question?

I would be grateful if hon. Members opposite would allow me to put my question. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this operation, stated to be one in which 135 families were forcibly herded from their homes and their homes destroyed before their eyes, has been described as being based upon a plan operated by the British in Malaya? Can he give an assurance that the British Police Mission in Vietnam, on which £100,000 of taxpayers' money is being spent, has given no advice whatsoever on the conduct of this operation?

I am afraid that I cannot comment on the contents of Press reports. But, as I said in my original Answer, the British Advisory Mission is not concerned in the planning of any specific operations, including Operation Sunrise, which is the sole responsibility of the Vietnamese Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what financial or other contribution was made last year, and what contribution it is proposed to make during the coming year, to the International Institute for the Unification of Private International Law in Rome.

A contribution of £350 was made for last year. It is proposed to pay the same amount for the present year.

I am grateful for that reply, but will not my hon. Friend look at this matter again for next year, in view of the immensely valuable work, not least in this country, being done by this Institute? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to raise the sum to an amount more realistic and more compatible with the work being done in Rome?

The question of increasing our contribution is under consideration in the light of the proposals made at the Tenth Session of the General Assembly of the Institute.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further steps are being taken to improve Anglo-Egyptian relations; and what are the main unsettled issues that impede improvement.

We are trying to achieve a friendly and businesslike relationship with the United Arab Republic. Her Majesty's Ambassador saw President Nasser on 25th February and spoke frankly of our relations and mutual interests. The discussion helped to remove misunderstandings on either side and I hope that such exchanges will continue.

Could the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of my Question and name specific issues which, in his opinion, are still impeding some kind of reconciliation?

There are certain things such as the matter I mentioned in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and the outstanding points about the Financial Agreement of 1959, together with questions arising out of the nationalisation law of last July, affecting British citizens. There are also further questions arising out of the re-sequestration of some British property towards the end of last year. These are some of the practical matters which are causing difficulties between us. The Minister of Finance of Egypt was in London a short time ago, when I was able to have a full discussion with him about these points. I hope that this may lead to a settlement of the outstanding issues.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will increase the number of United Nations Bonds to be purchased by this country, in view of the decision of the United States Senate to make the purchase of bonds over the value of $25 million, up to a maximum of $100 million, dependent upon the United States' figure being matched by the total purchases of other countries.

No, Sir.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the policy of Britain on this matter could have an influence on the eventual purchases made by the United States and perhaps other Governments? Could he at least promise the House that the Government will keep this under review and make sure that no action of theirs will prevent the financial crisis in the United Nations being solved by adequate purchases of these bonds?

Yes, Sir. I am sure that our policy can and does have an influence on the United Nations. Our purchase of £12 million worth of bonds was one of the first to be announced, and it is still the second largest, the American purchase being the biggest. But it is the most that we are prepared to contemplate.

Maybe this is the second largest contribution, but it is nothing like enough in relation to What we need to give to the United Nations in order to erase the impression that the Government are half-hearted in their support of the U.N.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what complaints have been received by Her Majesty's Government on discourteous treatment of British seamen visiting Communist ports.

Her Majesty's Government have received few such complaints in recent years: one this year from Odessa, and four in 1960 from Chinese ports.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the walking-off by British crews from ships carrying grain to China? As this trade is in the general interest, will he not look into it and see what action can be taken?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to this report. I think that it would properly be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that as in China at the present time there is greater hunger than in any other part of the world, should we not do our best to get food there and not impede it?

I can certainly say that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to maintain and if possible to increase trade with China.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding the creation of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation force armed with nuclear weapons.

The North Atlantic Council is conducting a general review of strategy in the course of which it will no doubt consider suggestions of this kind. I would not wish to anticipate these discussions by making a statement now.

I appreciate that, but is it not vital that a ban on the spread of nuclear weapons should apply to N.A.T.O., as otherwise the West German generals would indirectly obtain them, including 100 Polaris missiles? Can the Lord Privy Seal ensure that Britain opposes any such move at the N.A.T.O. Ministers' Meeting starting on 1st May?

I know of no proposal that the control of such weapons should be given to other countries. The arrangements are the "key of the cupboard" arrangements by which they remain under American control.