asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will state the total amount paid by the Federal German Government under the Federal Restitution Law of 1957; what percentage of the total amount due this represents; what proposals the Federal German Government have made to pay more than the limit of 1,500,000,000 Deutschmarks agreed by the three Western Powers and the Federal Republic of Germany at Bonn in 1952; and if he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will insist on compensation in full before a peace treaty is signed.

According to information recently supplied by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, the total amount paid under the Federal Restitution Law of 1957 up to 1st April, 1962, was 1,283,884,885·76 Deutschmarks. Claims up to 20,000 Deutschmarks are paid up to 100 per cent. and higher claims have in general been paid up to 50 per cent. Furthermore, claimants who are 65 years of age or more receive 75 per cent. of their claim, up to a maximum of 100,000 Deutschmarks. The Government of the Federal Republic have made no proposals to Her Majesty's Government for the payment of more than 1·5 milliard Deutschmarks; however, I am informed that the responsible authorities in the Federal Republic are examining whether and to what extent arrangements more favourable to the claimants might be made as a result of amendments to the Federal Restitution Law which are being prepared.

Will my hon. Friend answer the last part of my Question? If the Federal Government do not agree to pay these people in full, could we insist that they do so before we sign a peace treaty? Is my hon. Friend aware of individual cases in this country of people who have had half the money which is due to them and who have been told that they must wait until they are 65 years of age before they receive the balance? This is causing considerable hardship to a lot of people. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as individuals are expected to meet their liabilities in full, the Federal Ger-man Government should be expected to do likewise?

I am aware of the hardships which exist, and I know of one particular case which my hon. Friend has brought to our notice. As I said, the Federal German Government have under consideration the possibility of further legislation. Our Embassy in Bonn is in touch with the German authorities on this subject, and I do not think that anything more can usefully be done at present.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are being taken, apart from military protests, to avoid incidents on the border of East and West Germany; and whether the United King-don Government have taken any action in the matter.

In their note on 25th June to the Soviet Government Her Majesty's Government, together with the United States and French Governments, proposed that the four Powers should examine means of preventing a recurrence of the incidents that have recently taken place on the sector border of Berlin. In our view, the Soviet Government have a clear responsibility to co-operate for the prevention of incidents provoked by the East German police and it is most regrettable that they should have turned down our suggestion in their reply of 14th July.

Is not it obvious that, after this long period of time, all the negotiations that have taken place, and all the objections to the alleged intransigence of the Soviet Union and so on, the only solution to this problem of border incidents of this character is to recognise the East German Government? If there were recognition of the East German Government a solution would naturally follow and we should save ourselves a lot of expenditure in Berlin.

No, Sir. I cannot agree with the suggestion in the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question or the implications of the second part. These are incidents which could perfectly well be dealt with by responsibility on the part of the East German Government and the Soviet Government, and we have suggested a perfectly reasonable and practical way of dealing with them.

While agreeing that the inhuman barrier in Berlin is in itself a serious obstacle to any further agreement, may I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal would agree that the time has come when Her Majesty's Government together with the United States Government should resume talks with the Soviet Government on a general settlement of the problem of access to Berlin? Would not that be the best hope of getting agreement and avoiding incidents on the border in the future?

Talks have been continued between the Soviet Government and the United States Government, and Her Majesty's Government and other Powers concerned have been kept fully informed. No doubt there will be another opportunity at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers in Geneva in this forthcoming week for further talks to take place.

If the Soviet Government continue this alleged intransigence and refuse to adopt the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government, is not this trouble going to continue for a very long time, and would it not be worth while trying out what will become inevitable some day, that is, recognition of East Germany?

I cannot agree that this is the policy which Her Majesty's Government should follow.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent details of all Government aids, credits and subsidies at present available to horticultural growers within the Common Market, are available to the British negotiating team in Brussels; what, in general terms, these aids are; and what study has been made of them in the context of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome.

The types of assistance available to growers in the European Economic Community vary from country to country but most commonly take the form of subsidised or guaranteed credit facilities and of grants for the structural improvement of holdings. Certain countries also subsidise the cost of machinery, fertilisers and transport. Our delegation does of course, have information on these. As from 30th July, Articles 92 to 94 of the Treaty of Rome, which deal with State aids, will apply in full to the production of, and trade in, most fruits and vegetables. We have studied the implications of these Articles in relation to aids to growers with great care because, if we joined the Community, we should wish to help our horticulture industry to adapt itself to Common Market conditions.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that, since protection for this industry is unlikely at the end of the transition period except in the most exceptional circumstances, it is absolutely vital that we ensure equality of credit to our growers under our own Horticulture Act? Also, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the antidumping regulations to which he alluded —under Article 91 of the Treaty, I think —are really fast and effective?

It is not possible to deal with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question until we have completed the negotiations, but I entirely agree with him about the second part, that there must not be any discrimination between member countries on these two very important points.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that horticultural growers are likely to be prejudiced more than other agricultural interests by entry into the Common Market, and will he, therefore, take special steps to ensure that this important industry in this country is safeguarded in the negotiations?

Yes, Sir; we fully appreciate the present position of the horticultural industry, but parts of it today are extremely efficient and I am 9ure that it is possible for the industry to compete effectively.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the negotiations between the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Association countries to have reached a stage at which Her Majesty's Government can decide whether its guarantee to the European Free Trade Association countries has been fulfilled.

It is too early yet to say when that stage will be reached. All the other European Free Trade Association countries have now submitted their applications, but negotiations with some of them will not begin until the autumn.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that there has been some delay over this matter, because it is a very important part of our guarantees before signing the Treaty of Rome? Does it not now look as if our decision may be held up? Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is every reasonable chance that the position with regard to the E.F.T.A. countries will not hold up our own signature of the Treaty of Rome?

The date of application was a matter for decision by each individual E.F.T.A. country. The negotiations with the Danish Government are quite far advanced. Those with the Norwegian Government have begun, those with the Swedish and Austrian Governments will begin on 28th July and those with the Swiss and Portuguese Government will begin later in the autumn.

First, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, or re-confirm, that it is the Government's position that there is a binding commitment on this country not to enter the Common Market unless the economic interests of our E.F.T.A. partners are seen to be fully safeguarded? Secondly, in view of what is to the minds of many of us all the nonsense being talked about the position of the neutrals, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Her Majesty's Government consider that neutrality should not be a reason for barring these countries from association under the Treaty of Rome? Will he also make it clear in the negotiations that we are not content to see our E.F.T.A. partners put in the same position as third countries, such as Argentina, Guatemala, or any country of that kind?

I have constantly made clear to the House the exact nature of the obligations of the British Government towards the European Free Trade Association countries, and we adhere to them.

When my right hon Friend talks about negotiations with other countries not taking place until the autumn, does that mean that Britain cannot come to a decision on this whole question until some time later than October?

The United Kingdom Government, having been present at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, can obviously form their own conclusions about the negotiations as far as they affect the United Kingdom, and Parliament can also form its views, but under our obligations we have to wait until the E.F.T.A. countries are able to form their views about their own stage of the negotiations.

Has the Minister had special consultation with Sweden in view of that country's feelings about the closer political association which is likely to arise between the Six? If so, what was the result of that consultation?

Throughout these negotiations we have been in the closest touch day by day with all the Governments of the E.F.T.A. countries, and after each Ministerial meeting I have seen the E.F.T.A. ambassadors in Brussels myself. We have therefore been able to advise each other, not only at the Ministerial meetings, but in the individual daily contacts. Of course, the Swedish Government have applied for association under Article 238 of the Treaty, which does not involve any political obligation.

May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), combined with his statement that the real negotiations with the E.F.T.A. countries will not be under way until the autumn, that there can be no question of a decision by Her Majesty's Government or any firm recommendation to this House until after the negotiations with the Six are complete—in other words, until very, very late this year at the earliest?

I have indicated that it is possible for the United Kingdom Government to form their own opinion about this, and for the negotiations affecting the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] Subject to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, of course. It is perfectly possible for the United Kingdom Government, having been in full consultation with the Commonwealth, after the Prime Ministers' Conference and When we reach the final stage of the negotiations, to form their opinion about the negotiations as far as the United Kingdom is concerned. They can also, if they wish, put it before Parliament and Parliament can express an opinion about the negotiations as far as they affect the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. It is then a matter for the E.F.T.A. countries together to discuss the remaining stages of the negotiations. That is clearly laid down in the communiques of July and August last year.

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, but is he telling the House that, whatever provisional view the Government or, indeed, Parliament may express on the negotiations as far as they have gone by September or October, there will be no final decision, and any provisional view is capable of being upset if at the end of the E.F.T.A. negotiations our guarantee cannot be met? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely plain that we are bound by that guarantee?

There is absolutely no reason for the right hon. Gentleman to cast any doubt whatever, as he repeatedly does, on the integrity of the British Government towards the European Free Trade Association countries. They are absolutely clear themselves that we are bound by the obligation to see that each E.F.T.A. country has its legitimate requirements met and Chat the arrangements come into operation on the same day.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will inform the South African Minister of Finance, who is at present in this country, that Her Majesty's Government cannot seek to secure special protection for South African exports to the Common Market such as are being sought for Commonwealth countries.

The South African Government are fully aware that the special arrangements which we are seeking in the Brussels negotiations are limited to Commonwealth countries.

In that case, may we be assured that the High Commission Territories, particularly Swaziland, will have their economic interests fully protected and, in particular, that Swaziland sugar will not be lumped in with South African sugar but will enjoy the full rights of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, which is not proposed at present?

We have already put forward proposals for dealing with the High Commission Territories by means of association under Part IV of the Treaty. Sugar is, of course, one of the commodities about which we are negotiating on the basis of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.

Will my night hon. Friend agree that tine witch taunt which continues about South Africa is really in the long run damaging to sound policies developing in that country? We should be more sensible about our treatment of South African affairs.

We naturally wish to continue trade with South Africa, which is to the benefit of both our countries. When the South African Minister was here recently, we had talks with him about this.

There is no question of a witch fount about South Africa but simply that she cannot be a member of the Commonwealth and not a member of the Commonwealth at the same time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of recent negotiations between the European Economic Community and ex-French African colonies, he will now make a statement about his own negotiations concerning the association of African members of the Commonwealth with the Common Market.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which I made to the House on 2nd July.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be possible to get any answer on this matter till the Six and their African associates make up their minds about their own problems, and will he assure the House that he will stand out for no less generous treatment for Commonwealth countries in Africa than that to be afforded to French colonies in Africa?

We have been in constant consultation about this in the course of the negotiations. The members of the Community have not yet finally agreed the existing associates' form of new convention to come into operation next year. It has been agreed that there should be no discrimination between the present associates and the new associates from the Commonwealth.

Is it not the case that the next meeting between the Six and their associate territories will not take place till after the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and that, therefore, this question cannot arise at that conference? In the second place, can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what provisions the Government are requesting for those Commonwealth countries which will not accept associate overseas territory status as negotiated between the Six and other African countries? In particular, will the Government insist that the same provision must be made for these countries as well?

Yes, I think I am right in saying that the date for the meeting between the Community and its associates has not yet been fixed. At the moment it is to be early in September. We have also, of course, a great deal of information about the nature of the new convention, which has naturally been communicated to the countries of the Commonwealth also, and therefore it will not be necessary to exclude it from the Prime Ministers' Conference. There are problems of alternative new arrangements. Naturally these have also been in our minds in relation to the negotiations, in particular as they affect particular commodities from those countries.

But with respect to the Lord Privy Seal, how on earth can the Government know the nature of the new agreement when it has not yet been reached?

For the simple reason that we know what the proposals are which are being put to the associates and that area in which agreement has been reached even though the political nature of the new convention is not settled.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the agreement reached in Brussels on the future of Commonwealth exports to Great Britain and to Europe of temperate zone products; and to what extent he has received assurances that Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets for their produce.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, as a result of his recent negotiations, he will now make a statement on the future of Commonwealth exports of temperate zone products to the United Kingdom and the Common Market.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stone-house) on 11th July.

Will the Minister make clear the minimum terms he is prepared to accept to meet the pledge which has been made that the Commonwealth will be protected, or has that pledge now been withdrawn?

The hon. Member must not keep saying that.

Is the Minister demanding that the Commonwealth countries will have comparable outlets in the enlarged Community, similar to those they now enjoy with the United Kingdom? Will he now make that position clear?

None of the pledges to the Commonwealth is being withdrawn and the basis on which we are negotiating was set out very clearly in my statement of 10th October in Paris. It has been brought up to date in reports to the House after each Ministerial meeting.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the main commodities involved, tea and cocoa, are at approximately the same figure of the percentage of the total temperate zone products involved? Will he further confirm that he has asked for a nil tariff only for those products and remind the House that there is no substantial conflict with the associate territories and the Commonwealth on these commodities?

On temperate products, we are dealing with cereals, meat, and dairy products. We have asked for a zero tariff for tea in the category of tropical products, and for a reduction of the tariff on cocoa.

On temperate zone products will the right hon. Gentleman now make it quite clear—I am not casting any aspersions on him: we should just like a clear answer, that is all— that the Government for their part will make it clear that no temporary relief for the problem of the Commonwealth will solve this problem? What we are all concerned about is the state of affairs which will appertain after 1970, and that neither this system, however generous the temporary relief may be, nor an international commodities agreement will of itself provide the answer which we seek.

Yes, I have constantly made it clear to the House that we have fully explained in these negotiations the Commonwealth position both for the transitional period for whatever length of time may be negotiated for particular products and for the long-term period which follows that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to explain the Commonwealth position is not enough for this House? What we are asking him is whether he will give a clear undertaking that the Commonwealth position will not be sacrificed by, for example, regarding temporary relief as enough for the Commonwealth and riding out on questions of worldwide agreements.

My words cannot possibly be taken in the way the right hon. Gentleman has used them. He must understand quite clear English. I have explained the Commonwealth position. We are negotiating to get arrangements in respect of these products for the Commonwealth countries. There is no question of riding out on worldwide agreements. Of course, we want worldwide agreements if they can be obtained. I always understood that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and right hon. Friends wanted them. Therefore, the problem for the Commonwealth is to agree on principles by which we can work for worldwide agreements at the earliest opportunity.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if that is his view, explain why, when worldwide commodity agreements were proposed at the recent G.A.T.T. conference in Geneva by the French, supported by the Commonwealth countries, the Government voted against them?

Because we were not in favour of that particular type of worldwide agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now make clear in the negotiations in Brussels that any tentative agreement on economic questions are subject to the overriding consideration that Great Britain will not form part of a European political union.

No, Sir. The basic conditions which we are seeking to meet in the negotiations are those set out in the Resolution adopted by this House on 3rd August, 1961.

Is there not a contradiction between that attitude and the broadcast of the West German Foreign Minister last Sunday in which he declared that a plan for European political union was being formulated on the basis of British entry into Europe, and does not he think the present evasion by Her Majesty's Government on this issue is likely to cause misunderstanding not only in Britain and the Commonwealth but also in Europe?

I have tried to explain fully to the House on a number of occasions, including the last two-day debate, the position on political union. There are discussions on this in which we have not taken part because we are not members of the Community at the moment. These discussions were under the Fouchet and now the Cattani Commission. I explained the views of the British Government on political union in the Western European Union meeting of Ministers of 10th April. These views were published in a White Paper and laid before the House, and these are the views of Her Majesty's Government. There is in no way an equivocal attitude about them. The Foreign Ministers of the Six countries of the Community were present and heard my statement and there can be no misunderstanding about it.

Since the right hon. Gentleman began his Answer with the words, "No, Sir", which could bad to a misunderstanding about the position, would he once again confirm that the mandate given to the Government by this House on 3rd August, 1961, gave no power whatever to negotiate any political commitment? Whatever may have been said by the right hon. Gentleman about inter-governmental arrangements, will he again make it clear that there is absolutely no commitment in the mind of Her Majesty's Government about entering into any form of federal union in Europe?

Put it on a gramophone record.

I have explained the view of Her Majesty's Government in the statement in Western European Union and I have made plain exactly what our views are on political developments. We cannot, on the other hand, tell how countries working more and more closely together are going to develop their institutions in the course of time. In that respect, each country must make its own contribution.

Will the Lord Privy Seal also confirm that the representatives of the Six have made it clear that in their view an economic union will not lead to success unless it eventually leads to complete political union?

The hon. Gentleman is begging the question when he says "complete political union". The six countries of the Community have had discussions among themselves and have prepared texts of which they have kept us completely informed. These texts are what would be commonly described as confederal texts, in which any decision taken must be by unanimous vote. That is the stage which the six countries of the Community have reached at this moment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the terms he is negotiating for the economic association with the European Economic Community of the African members of the Commonwealth impose on the latter the obligation to apply Common Market tariffs against imports from other countries, and to maintain their tariffs against imports from European Economic Community countries at levels not exceeding those of colonial times.

Our objective is that, if we join the European Economic Community, the Commonwealth countries referred to should have the opportunity to become associated with the European Economic Community, if they wish to do so, on no less favourable terms than the Community's present associates.

Is it not true that the Community's present associates are required to keep their tariffs against Common Market countries at substantially the same low levels as prevailed in colonial times, while applying Common Market tariffs against outside African States? Is not that objected to by Ghana and several other African members of the Commonwealth as tending to keep them in the position of primary producers and to prohibit them from forming an African Common Market of their own?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in all three parts of that supplementary question. The associated countries are not required to apply the common tariff to other countries. They are entitled to protect their own emerging industries as they think fit, and as far as I know the view mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is not the view expressed by the Ghana Government.

As the right hon. Gentleman has said that he knows the broad details of the negotiations with the A.O.T. States, can he tell us what proportion of the European aid fund is to be provided by Her Majesty's Government and What proportion is to be spent in Commonwealth countries in Africa?

Arrangements for the financing of the fund will, of course, depend upon the number of Commonwealth countries which wish to accede to the association. The fund itself will be used, in greater part, for projects as they are brought forward, although in particular cases it will be used for loans and fox commodity arrangements as the result of reductions in preferences.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion will be provided by Britain and what proportion will be spent in the Commonwealth? Will it depend on the populations of the Commonwealth countries which accede to A.O.T. status?

These matters are not dealt with purely in accordance with population but by projects as they are brought forward.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in his latest talks in Brussels, he insisted that Commonwealth preferences must continue until the European Economic Community had provided comparable alternative outlets, either by quotas, tariff cuts, international trade agreements, or some other definite and equivalent commitment.

I have nothing to add to what I said on 2nd July.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in that reply he did not make it clear that the Government would insist on an agreement, signed, sealed and delivered at the end of 1970, that Commonwealth preference would continue until there was a definite quid pro quo? Will he give an assurance that he will not allow Commonwealth preference to lapse in whole or in part by the exchange merely of undertakings to negotiate worldwide agreements?

I have explained the basis on which we are negotiating for these commodities on a number of occasions, and the hon. Member must now wait and form his own judgment on the outcome.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the representations made by Commonwealth Governments to Her Majesty's Government during the last two weeks, if Her Majesty's Government adheres to the intention not to enter the European Economic Community unless favourable agreements are reached on trade matters affecting the Commonwealth.

The Government have repeatedly made their intentions in this matter entirely clear and they adhere to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, while we all recognise his undoubted ability and sincerity, he should devote himself to the economic rehabilitation of this country instead of going cap in hand to the Six and asking permission to enter the E.E.C.? In view of all the hesitations, reservations and qualifications, the protracted negotiations and the divisions in the Conservative Party and in the Labour Party, surely it would be better to abandon the whole project and get on to something worth while.

I am indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about me. My only regret is that his very long experience and undoubted still great energy should be used for such a misguided purpose as to oppose this project.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reassurances he gave in his recent conversations with Commonwealth Ministers about the prospects for Commonwealth trade in the event of the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.

Our discussions were confidential. Her Majesty's Government adhere to their undertakings, which have been repeatedly stated in this House.

I thank my right hon. Friend very much for that reply. Will he appreciate, however, that it is this very question which is agitating so many thoughtful people throughout our country who might otherwise be favourable to our entry into the Common Market? Will he bear in mind that some reassurance of this kind will really be essential if he is to get this job through?

Yes, Sir. I fully appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend. The visits of many Commonwealth Ministers have given us the opportunity of going over each aspect in minute detail, and we are fully informed about this question. After Question Time, I am flying to Paris to carry on talks with Mr. Desai, the Indian Finance Minister, about India's problems.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, in dealing with Commonwealth trade and possible political union, it is most damaging to his position in the negotiations that we should have statements from President Kennedy or Herr Strauss, the West German Defence Minister, suggesting in effect that Britain is already in the Common Market or that the decision has already been taken? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is also extremely alarming that such an authority on the negotiations as M. Spaak should be apparently astounded when he hears clearly stated the condi- tions on which this country might be prepared to enter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman seriously think that it would an advantage for the Government to state the position so clearly that the President of the United States can no longer go on saying that in effect the whole deal is done and that Britain is in already?

I cannot be responsible for statements made by members of other Governments. The Governments of the Six are quite clear about the British position. M. Spaak, at the Ministerial meeting which began on 8th May, complimented the British delegation for the way in which they were putting forward the position of the Commonwealth and the requirements for Commonwealth trade. He is under no sort of misunderstanding about the British Government's position or about the Commonwealth's position.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now give an assurance that no British commitment to enter the Common Market will be made prior to the next Session of Parliament.

As I told the House on 7th June, there can be no British commitment to become a member of the European Economic Community until Parliament has approved.

As that statement was as ambiguous as the one the right hon. Gentleman has made since on the question of timing, will he now clarify the matter if I put my question in a slightly different way? Will he give an assurance that this House will not be asked to express a view, even a provisional view, of British entry into the Common Market before the leaders of the parties have had the opportunity of consulting their rank and file at the October conferences and before we know the outcome of the negotiations with the other E.F.T.A. countries?

I have made the position quite plain. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition will want to consult the hon. Member before he himself makes any decision.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the current British liaison with the Cattani Commission now considering the political implications of the Treaty of Rome.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has asked that talks on the political future of Europe should be held with the Common Market members; and when he expects them to begin.

The Cattani Commission has held no meetings since the Foreign Ministers of the Six member Governments met in Paris on 17th April. There have been some exchanges between the Governments concerned through the diplomatic channel during the last three months. We have been kept informed of the progress of these exchanges.

Is there a commitment in these talks which would prevent any future British Government from cooperating with the growing neutralist forces in the world in a peace policy independent of America and Russia? Is it not the cold war influences, aimed at stopping this growth, which are trying to push us into the Common Market?

There is no commitment in these talks and the policy which would be followed in the event of these talks proving successful would remain to be decided by the member Governments. Just now the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) asked whether it was not true that we had no authority to take part in discussions of this kind. Any Government, of course, is entitled to enter into discussions of this kind with other Governments towards formulating a treaty. The obligation is that a treaty must be presented to Parliament before it can be implemented.

As the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted me, is he aware that I did not say that the Government have no authority to enter into negotiations, but that what I said was in relation to his statement that the Government were operating purely within the mandate given by the House on 3rd August, last year, and that I asked whether he agreed that that mandate gave him no authority to negotiate for political union, which is a very different thing?

I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made the position plain, but I was answering a Question dealing with the Brussels negotiations and, therefore, related only to the undertakings given to the House.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that nearly a year ago the Fouchet Commission made it clear that its aim was ultimately political union? Is it not now widely accepted that that is the purpose of the Common Market Six? If the right hon. Gentleman enters into an economic arrangement for integration, is he to remain half in and half out of the total arrangement which must incorporate political union?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in saying that that was the conclusion of the Fouchet Commission. What the Fouchet Commission—the Cattani Commission as it now is—has done is to produce texts which, as I have already explained, are not federal texts.

Has my right hon. Friend received a reply to the representations which he mentioned?

No, Sir, because there have been no further meetings of the Ministers since I made them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what advice, apart from that contained in its memorandum, he has received from the Trades Union Congress in the course of the Common Market negotiations.

I have had a number of informal talks with trade union leaders as well as with other sections of the community. These have been useful in clarifying the issues involved in the negotiations, but they must remain confidential.

While welcoming the constructive attitude of the T.U.C. to these negotiations, may I ask the Lord Privy Seal to undertake to continue these consultations with the T.U.C. throughout the negotiations?

Yes, indeed, and I shall be seeing the T.U.C. again quite shortly.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what assurances he has received, during his most recent negotiations with European Economic Community countries, about the continuation of Commonwealth preferences to British traders; and if he will make a statement.

This is a matter for the Commonwealth Governments concerned.

Does not the right horn. Gentleman agree that it is reasonable to suppose that if we out down the preferences on Commonwealth goods coming into this country, or even refuse entry to Commonwealth goods, Commonwealth countries will reciprocate? Does that prospect give him any pleasure, and has he put this point firmly to the people with whom he is negotiating?

The Commonwealth countries themselves will wish to consider the outcome of the negotiations and the possibility of negotiations in these matters with third countries.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many members of the United Nations have signed the 1956 Supplementary Convention for the Abolition of Slavery; and how many of these are members of the Afro-Asian group.

Forty members of the United Nations have signed the 1956 Supplementary Convention for the Abolition of Slavery. Of these, 14 are African or Asian. I am glad to say that four countries, of which two are African and one is Asian, have signed the Convention since I answered a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 11th April.

Is not this a rather sorry state of affairs, and is it not an example of the double standard in these matters referred to by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary? Will my hon. Friend do all he can to ensure that there is a unanimous signing of this Convention?

I agree that disappointingly few States have signed this Convention. I can certainly promise my hon. Friend that we will continue to take the initiative, as we have for many years, in urging countries to sign it.

Is it not incredible that in the year of grace 1962 slavery should be so prevalent in parts of the world? Cannot the Government take still stronger step to get this Convention signed and implemented? I find it difficult to believe that people accept this position calmly.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is incredible that slavery should exist, but there seems to be plenty of evidence that it does. On the question of a British initiative, as my hon. Friend knows, the United Kingdom delegation to the Economic and Social Council has tabled a resolution urging countries to sign this Convention.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's recent discussions with the Egyptian Government about a final settlement over British property that has been Egyptianised, desequestrated and more recently resequestrated.

There have been no recent discussions with the United Arab Republic Government on property Egyptianised in the period 1956–1958. The compensation of £27½ million for this property provided for in Article IV of the Financial Agreement of 1959 was paid in full by the U.A.R. Government in 1959.

Is it not a fact that the terms of the Egyptian Financial Agreement have not yet been implemented by the Egyptian Government, namely, the repatriation of £5,000 per head, and furniture, and so on? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that the new wave of sequestration at the end of last year is quite unjustifiable? When can we expect a settlement of this matter which has been dragging on for several years?

I was anxious in my Answer to distinguish between three classes which have been dealt with under this agreement mentioned by my hon. Friend. On the question of the amount of compensation for Egyptianisation, it has been paid by the United Arab Republic, and as a result of Orders passed by the House percentages have been paid to the claimants. As far as the second group of desequestrated property is concerned, there have been, as the House will know, a number of difficulties about this, and we are in negotiation. I hope it will not now be long before I can make an announcement on further arrangements to the House. As far as the property reseques-trated is concerned, that, of course, is mainly property of Egyptians and of only a small number of British personnel. We have a great interest in them. Arrangements under the decree of sequestration are known, although they have not yet been completed.

Yes, but does not my hon. Friend really appreciate that the Government's record in this matter of Egyptian treatment of British nationals is utterly deplorable? When are we going to reach the stage at which this matter can be dealt with justly, fairly and firmly, and not in this piecemeal, cheeseparing way, going on year after year in this unsatisfactory way?

I am as anxious as my hon. Friend is to see the final settlement of these claims, but he will appreciate that there are a number of claims which cannot yet be assessed because the amount of damage suffered under sequestration is not yet known. It is essential for this process to be completed before the financial amounts can be calculated and the claims paid.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now announce the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the United Kingdom's accession to the Genocide Convention.

Her Majesty's Government fully accept the spirit of the Convention and wholeheartedly support its objects. They have concluded, however, after long and earnest consideration, and with great regret, that the difficulties involved are such that the United Kingdom should not accede to it. The reason for this decision is explained in a fuller statement which, in view of its length, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that his reply will cause a considerable amount of unhappiness and dissatisfaction to a large number of people? Is he aware of the fact that only a few weeks ago there was a meeting held in Trafalgar Square where people declared themselves to be Nazis and eulogised what that arch-criminal Hitler had done, and that they advocated the barbaric cult of Nazism, and that genocide was thus being advocated, as was implicit because of their declaration that they were Nazis? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that paragaphs (b) and (c) of Article III of the United Nations Convention ought to be invoked by us? It says that among acts which shall be punishable are

" Conspiracy to commit genocide"

"Direct and public incitement to commit genocide ".

I readily acknowledge the immense interest which the hon. Gentleman has always taken in this Convention and the great concern which its implementation is to him. The Government have over a considerable period now given the very closest consideration to it, and I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate the very full explanation which I am going to publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to answer questions on the fuller statement at the end of Question Time next week, if we put a Question on the Paper?

I will undertake to answer Questions, but I cannot be expected to undertake to do so after Question Time. I will certainly consider any Question which the right hon. Gentleman puts down.

If we put down a Question for Wednesday next, will the right hon. Gentleman ask Mr. Speaker's permission to answer it at the end of Questions?

No.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I cannot give an undertaking like that at this stage. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] In fairness to other hon. Members of the House, and not knowing the business of the House on that day.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will propose to the Geneva Conference on Laos the withdrawal of all foreign troops from this theatre of operations.

No, Sir. The Geneva Agreement already provides for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Laos.

Will the Minister state how soon it will be before he expects this agreement to be implemented? Does he not realise that the moment is more conducive now than at any other time since obtaining the cease-fire, and does not he also appreciate that the longer we delay implementing such an agreement the more we reap distrust and foster suspicion? Speed should be the watchword of our action in bringing about the withdrawal of all these foreign troops.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The conference in Geneva has made very steady progress and I hope that an agreement will be reached and signed before very long.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, following the establishment of a neutral coalition Government in Laos, he will now order the withdrawal of the British forces in Thailand.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if British troops will be withdrawn from Thailand in view of the formation of a neutralist Government in Laos.

I have nothing to add to my hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on this subject on 27th June.

As it is now clear that any threat to Thailand from Laos, if it ever existed, has completely disappeared, does not the continued retention of British forces in Thailand lend colour to the suspicions that they are really there in order to support American military intervention in other parts of South-East Asia?

No, Sir. The reason for our token forces being sent there was fully explained to the House in particular during the foreign affairs debate on 24th May. The coalition Government in Laos has been in existence only for a very short time, the agreement at Geneva has not yet been signed and we must wait a little and see how circumstances develop.

But was it not the explanation that there was a danger that Communist forces in Laos might menace the invasion of Thailand? Does the hon. Gentleman really say that that danger still exists, when a neutralist Government has been formed in Laos and any separate Communist military forces have been entirely obliterated?

No. I say that the Coalition Government has been in existence only a very short time and that we must wait and see what develops.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with the Governor of Alicante, who is now on a visit to this country as the guest of Her Majesty's Government, regarding the suppression of religious liberty in Spain as affecting British Protestants in that country.

No approach was made to the Governor of Alicante while he was here.

May I ask why not? Is not the Minister aware that the congregation of the Spanish Evangelical Church in Alicante has been seeking for 12 months to use its church, which was built with Government permission, and that the only consent now required is that of the Governor; and that it is conduct of this kind which makes it diffi- cult to regard Spain as a civilised country?

Yes, Sir. I think that the church mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is a Spanish institution and therefore Her Majesty's Government have no right to intervene. Where British interests and subjects are involved, we make representations to the appropriate Spanish authorities. There have been no cases recently.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether in view of Mr. Krushchev's recent policy statement on behalf of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a nuclear test agreement, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to conclude such an agreement without waiting for a general disarmament treaty.

Yes, Sir.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consensus of opinion among world scientists is that on-site inspections are relatively unimportant? Would not the Government give a lead to the Geneva Conference by proposing that the memorandum tabled by the neutrals on 17th April should be turned into a draft treaty and not used merely as a basis for discussion?

It is too early to form a conclusion about the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question. We have accepted the memorandum of the neutrals as a basis for negotiation.

What I was suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman was not that it should be used as a basis for discussion, but that the proposals should be turned into a draft treaty and that Her Majesty's Government should make themselves responsible for making that proposal.

I think that I have already pointed out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the weakness of the memorandum put forward by the neutrals—the method of on-site inspection—but we have accepted it as a basis for discussion in the conference.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what new proposals he has made to Euratom for handing over to them British nuclear information.

The proposals which I have made to the European Atomic Energy Community are contained in my Opening Statement to the Member States in Brussels on 3rd July, which has been published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 1767).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Britain has spent millions of pounds on nuclear research and development which it will be giving away and getting nothing in return? Is he also aware that the new policy for European energy requirements, in the document on synthesis, is to cut coal production by half by 1970? Does he not think that his discredited Government should go to the country now and let the country decide this matter?

I have given the House a very full Answer, showing that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's carefully prepared supplementary question was completely wrong. There is no question of giving away information in the manner he has suggested.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what conclusions have been reached in the discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of South Africa regarding the future relations between the High Commission Territories and the Republic, particularly as they affect the customs control of publications addressed to the protectorates.

The chief aspects of future relations between the High Commission Territories and the Republic of South Africa have already been settled. Arrangements in respect of nationality are set out in the South Africa Act, 1962. Temporary arrangements have been made to cover movement of persons between the Territories and the Republic up to 1st January, 1963. Discussions on other aspects of future relations are in progress. Under the customs union between the Territories and South Africa the South African Customs authorities examine all material on entry for the purpose of levying duty, part of which accrues to the Territories. If the South African authorities were to impound as undesirable material consigned to the Territories we should certainly make representation for its release.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. If I draw his attention to the fact that publications which are permitted in British Colonial and Protectorate Territories have been confiscated by the Customs of the Republic of South Africa when addressed to our Protectorates, will he take up the matter?

Yes. I know of only one case and that concerned a periodical, Africa South in Exile. I do not know whether that is the case to which the hon. Gentleman is referring, but the Basutoland authorities were asked to investigate the alleged incident and they reported that on 29th June the South African Commissioner of Customs and Excise admitted wrongful seizure of 400 copies of Africa South in Exile and informed the consignee that the package had been released to be sent to him.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the sessions of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in Geneva which discussed the arrangements for the United Nations Development Decade.

As this item is still under discussion at the Economic and Social Council, I am not in a position to make a statement.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the disappointing aspects is that the new targets for technical assistance and pre-investment work which were geared to the Development Decade are not getting the response which was expected? In view of that, would he consider the British contributions for 1962, which are still geared to the old and not the new target?

Yes. I went to the Economic and Social Council last week and my impression was that all the countries who were members of the Council were enthusiastically behind the scheme, but it would not be right to go into details until the full meeting of the Council has been completed.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he is considering an increase in the British contribution called for and that a decision will be made without delay?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the matter is coming up for review in the autumn.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that none of this effort will divert resources from the development of the Commonwealth?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, most of our resources go to the development of the Commonwealth.