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

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministerial meeting, Her Majesty's Government will oppose both the proposals for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force and for a further extension of national nuclear forces.

No such proposals were made at the North Atlantic Council Ministerial meeting. The United States Government have indicated that they will be prepared to consider helping to create a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force if their European allies wish. If such a proposal were made a decision would have to be taken in the light of all the circumstances at the time.

Although we know that the Government's policy is in a complete state of chaos, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will at least give us an assurance that the Government will not contemplate any plan or arrangement which would have the result that Western Germany would share in either the production or control of nuclear weapons?

As to the question of Her Majesty's Government's plans being in disarray, they would be much more disarrayed if the party opposite were in charge. As regards the position of Western Germany, this will be considered if the matter arises in relation to a N.A.T.O. meeting. There is nothing before N.A.T.O. at the moment, as I have made clear, and I cannot consider hypothetical questions of this kind.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that any spread of nuclear weapons increases the risk of an accident and also world tension? Would it not be particularly dangerous for the West German generals to control directly or indirectly the bomb, particularly since they have not renounced their claim to the lost provinces?

I do not think that there is any question here of relinquishing control to any individual nation. That is not the intention of the suggestion at all, and certainly Her Majesty's Government would not be in favour of relinquishing control to any nation. We made that clear and we voted in that sense in the United Nations at the last Assembly.

Would the hon. Gentleman make clear whether the suggestion that he has been outlining is for a N.A.T.O. deterrent of the United States and N.A.T.O. nations or is the proposal, which is much canvassed in Europe now, for what one might call a Common Market deterrent, that is, Western European nations only? Will not the hon. Gentleman state categorically that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any such proposal for a West European deterrent as dividing the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. and diverting efforts from the N.A.T.O. activities, and, secondly, as being highly provocative to the Soviet Union if it is felt that Germany is having any part whatsoever in having a finger on the nuclear bomb?

On this point the position is quite clear. The Question relates specifically to N.A.T.O. The Question is on N.A.T.O. forces and there has been no other one considered. I have nothing to add to what I have said, which is the precise position of Her Majesty's Government in relation to N.A.T.O. in this regard.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in order to enable hon. Members to estimate the extent to which the present and planned strengths of the West German Army and Air Force exceed the limits originally laid down in the revised Brussels Treaty, he will propose to the other members of the Western European Union that the Special Agreement annexed to the European Defence Community Treaty shall now be made public.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer is as disgraceful as the one given by the Joint Under-Secretary of State to me in a Written Answer on Monday, when he said that the Government were not prepared to state even when the Council of Western European Union took decisions to increase the limits on the size of the German Armed Forces? Is it the case not only that the Government are conniving at the breach of the Paris agreements and the rearmament of Germany beyond the limits then laid down, and doing it secretly, but that the House is to have no information about the matter whatsoever?

I am happy to know that I am in accord with my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State in incurring the displeasure of the hon. Gentleman. I am glad to have it reinforced. It has been made clear to the hon. Gentleman many times that the discussions to which he has referred are confidential. He asked me if I would publish them, and I am not prepared to do so. The important thing about the level of German forces is that it is unanimously approved by all W.E.U. countries. That is the important consideration in this case.

Some years ago, Ministers got the approval of this House, after a pretty acrimonious debate, about the level of forces which Western Germany would be allowed to hold. When we ask whether the present and projected forces go beyond what this House then approved, is it good enough to be told that these discussions are confidential and that we can be given no information on this matter? Will the Minister of State look at this again and undertake to tell the House categorically, not whether it has been agreed in Brussels unanimously or anything else, but Whether the limits then imposed by agreement in a treaty and approved by this House have been exceeded or whether it is intended to exceed them? Can we have that information? We have the right to ask for it.

The original level of forces referred to in the Brussels Treaty has never been published. There is no obligation to publish this information, as I have made clear. My hon. Friend said on 10th December that the present strength is in accord with W.E.U. and N.A.T.O. approved levels.

In view of the entirely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister of State's reply, I give nice that I propose to take the opportunity to raise this matter on another occasion.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that a number of British holders of Japanese Government internal yen bands were unable to collect interest accruing during hostilities until signature of the Peace Treaty and thereby compelled to accept payment in post-war inflated currency; and if he will make representations to the Japanese Government about this matter.

0: Her Majesty's Government are aware of this, but it is 10 years since the Peace Treaty was signed. The holding of foreign bands is always subject to certain risks, and there is no legal basis on which Her Majesty's Government could usefully raise this with the Japanese Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a large number of people think that no country should profit out of a war with this country and, secondly, that at this time when the Anglo-Japanese commercial treaty is being negotiated this is the sort of treatment of a minority of British holders which should not be neglected and the Japanese Government should be made to realise that their obligations should be met in full to all British holders?

I understand and sympathise with my hon. Friend's point of view on this matter, but I would say to him that the commercial treaty is solely concerned with commerce and navigation and really has no bearing on this matter. I have explained the difficulties in regard to this particular matter, and I do not think there is any further useful action which Her Majesty's Government can take.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the new policy towards Katanga now proposed at the United Nations for more stringent measures for integration, including sanctions, Her Majesty's Government will now propose at the United Nations the settling of the Congolese problem on the same basis of self-determination of the constituent parts as that adopted in the case of the Central African Federation.

No, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United Nations Plan for National Reconciliation in the Congo, which was accepted by both M. Adoula and M. Tshombe. This Plan provides for a federal system of government for the Congo. The Congo attained independence as one country, and Her Majesty's Government in common with other Governments recognise the Central Government as that of the country as a whole. The principle of the unity of the Congo has been upheld in a number of United Nations resolutions.

That is a very interesting historical analysis, but is my hon. Friend aware that, while it may be perfectly arguable that economic considerations applying to a whole area outweigh the political aspirations of one section of the people living there, it is not very difficult for my hon. Friend or anyone else to justify precisely the opposite when considering conditions in two separate but adjoining territories?

No, Sir; I think that the conditions are very different. I understand my hon. Friend's point of view in this matter, but the Congo has been under one Government for a very long period of years. The situation as regards the Federation, to which he refers, is entirely different, and there has been only a very short time during which a federal association has been considered there. There is really nothing comparable in the two cases.

Is it not most important that the policy of Her Majesty's Government should be clear and unequivocal? If Britain does not support the United Nations, would it not be wise to say so, but if Britain does, is not the proper course to give the Secretary-General wholehearted backing in this operation?

As was made clear by my hon. Friend in the House only the other day, we have supported and do support the Plan for National Reconciliation in the Congo. That has been made abundantly clear.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the unity of the Congo, but is it not a fact that the Secretary-General's plan, which has the support of most of our allies and most members of the Commonwealth, is being frustrated, if not actually sabotaged, by the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is felt in many parts of the world and by many of us in the House that the motives behind the Government's attitude in this matter come from pressures both from Sir Roy Welensky and from some other undesirable financial interests in the Congo?

I do not accept that for a moment. As I have said, Her Majesty's Government have accepted the plan and we support it. That is the basis of our position in relation to the Congo. The other questions in relation to the courses of action proposed are quite another matter. Her Majesty's Government have made their position perfectly clear.

Does my right hon. Friend realise how interested we, or at least some of us, on this side of the House are to hear all this vindictive talk against the right of self-determination from the Liberal Panty and the Labour Party which are very fond of preaching it everywhere else in the world except, apparently, where it appears that any defence of British interests may be at stake?

asked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has made of the declaration of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 2nd December calling on the Western Powers to recognise that the Russian Government does not want war and asking them to show greater readiness for a give-and-take settlement; and whether he will make the corresponding changes in the Government's policy.

Her Majesty's Government have looked carefully at the text of the Secretary-General's thoughtful speech. We are well aware of certain Changes in Soviet policies, including their declared attitude towards war, since the death of Stalin and the assumption of leadership of Mr. Khrushchev. We have taken account of these changes in relation to our own policies towards the Soviet Union.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that, if the Government would show half as much energy, ingenuity and stubbornness in pressing our allies, for instance, to negotiate on the Rapacki Plan, as often proposed by the Opposition, as they have displayed in trying to crawl into the Common Market or cadge Skybolt from the Americans, this country would make a real contribution to peace and have more respect in the world than it has today?

No, Sir; I do not accept that for one moment. The fact that the Opposition push something does not necessarily mean that it is a good policy to push. Her Majesty's Government have tried genuinely and sincerely to come to an accommodation with the Soviet Union on many issues and they are continuing to do so.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied that the good offices of the United States have succeeded sufficiently in securing the ending of Egyptian military intervention in Yemen to render it unnecessary for the matter to be raised by Her Majesty's Government as a threat to peace; and if, having regard to the threat to British interests, and to the integrity of Aden, he will make a statement.

The Yemeni republican authorities have made an announcement about their discussions with the United States Government. I should prefer not to comment in advance of any statement by the United States Government on this subject, and until we have studied the Yemeni republican authorities' announcement.

May we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will not recognise the republican régime in the Yemen, and may we be assured also that they will continue to recognise the legitimate Government of the Yemen? Further, will the Government bring to the notice of the United Nations the indiscriminate bombing of civilians and villages in the Yemen by Russian aircraft of the Egyptian Air Force?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about recognition. I should prefer not to comment on the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question until we have studied the statement which has just been issued.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government will now give diplomatic recognition to the republican régime in the Yemen.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he can yet state whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise the Government of Brigadier Salaal in the Yemen.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement during the debate on the Address on 31st October.

Is it not clear that the new régime in the Yemen has come to stay and that the Imam's régime which it replaced was of an extremely reactionary and repressive character? Would not British recognition, added to American recognition, which appears to be imminent, do much towards settling affairs in Southern Arabia generally?

My right hon. Friend told the House what were, broadly, the criteria for recognition, and Her Majesty's Government at the moment do not think that those criteria have been fulfilled.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman two supplementary questions. First, what is the position of our representative in the Yemen? Why did the Foreign Secretary give instructions that he was not on any account to see the six Members of Parliament who visited the Yemen recently in contradistinction to the extreme courtesy shown by the American representative to us? Secondly, has the hon. Gentleman seen the article in The Times today making it clear that recognition of the Yemen on the part of the United States is imminent? Does he want to wait once again until America has taken the lead? Cannot he take the lead in this case instead of waiting for the Americans?

As to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, our representative in the Yemen is the Minister in Taiz, Mr. Gandy. It is entirely wrong to say that my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary gave instructions to Mr. Gandy that he should not afford the usual courtesies to the visiting delegation of Members of Parliament. We expect to hear from Mr. Gandy on this subject, and I will let the right hon. Gentleman know as soon as we hear from him why he was not able to meet the delegation.

In view of the confirmed reports that the United States Government are going to recognise the Yemen Republic in the course of today, and in view of the close, friendly and cordial relationships between President Kennedy and the Prime Minister now, would it not be more becoming for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the Yemen Republic today? If this cannot be done today, may we expect a statement tomorrow?

I do not think I can add anything to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale), who asked a similar question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now conduct an inquiry into the allegations that British arms are being smuggled into the Yemen.

No, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the statement by the Government of the United Arab Republic that they would be willing to withdraw their forces from the Yemen given a cessation of hostile activity by Saudi Arabia and Jordan? In view of the accusations made about British arms being involved in these matters, if we have nothing to hide would it not be better to have the matter thoroughly investigated?

The Question is about British arms which were smuggled into the Yemen. I have heard that allegations have been made about this, and we have said that we would consider any evidence that was produced. So far, no evidence has been produced.

Will my hon. Friend direct British influence towards removing the foreign intervention by the United Arab Republic in the affairs of the Yemen so that the Imam may put down the rebellion and restore law and order? Is my hon. Friend aware that the group of individuals who visited the Yemen recently were not delegated by anybody except themselves to go there?

I certainly accept the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was his reply to the letter he had from Brigadier Salaal's Government in the Yemen asking Her Majesty's Government for assistance in the supply of 50,000 blankets.

In response to their inquiry, the Yemeni republican authorities were informed that we were ready to ship 50,000 blankets immediately to any private buyer whom they cared to nominate.

Is it the case that only if a private buyer comes forward may these blankets be sent and that, even if the Government need them and even if the people are suffering intense hardship from cold, they are not allowed to have them unless a private buyer can step in and make his profit? Is that the only reason for the Answer?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that these are War Office surplus blankets. We could not sell them to the Yemeni republican authorities without recognising the republican Government.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the letter has been—

Order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was about to give notice. That was why I hesitated.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the discussions on the proposed nuclear test ban.

Since my hon. Friend answered a similar Question on 12th December, there have been further meetings of the Disarmament Committee and the Nuclear Tests Sub-Committee, but, while there has been further discussion on the use of unmanned seismic stations, no further progress has been made.

Would it not have a great effect both on America and on Russia if Britain now declared that from 1st January we would end nuclear tests, as recommended by the General Assembly? Secondly, even if there is a risk, which I concede, of some small underground test escaping detection and identification, is not that risk far less than the danger of the alternative which means continuing and intensifying the nuclear arms race?

As to the first point, there is another Question on the Order Paper, and I think that I had better wait until that comes. On the second point, the risk is still real and I think that it would be wrong to minimise it too much. I have been into this with very considerable care, and I could not advise that it would be safe to ignore this risk.

Is the Minister aware that, while its position on the test ban is really quite indefensible, the Soviet Union has now accepted that three black boxes can go on to Soviet territory, being taken there and taken away by international representatives? Is he aware, also, that Sir John Cockroft has stated that only a few earthquakes cannot be identified outside the country concerned? If the Russians would agree to more of these black boxes going in, would it not then be possible for the Government to accept the principle of the proposals made by the neutral countries for a test ban?

There are various aspects to this matter. It is a step forward that the Russians have accepted at least three of these black boxes. I have myself tried to ascertain from them precisely what their proposals are. For instance, if it is individual black boxes, that is one thing, but if it is arrays of black boxes in three places, that is quite another matter, and it would be a big step forward. These are all aspects of the subject. The question of siting also is extremely important.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) is planning to make the same sort of protests againsts the two Soviet tests in the atmosphere yesterday as he made against the smaller British test a few weeks ago?

Whatever the Minister's duties may be, they are not to explain the intentions of the hon. Member for Salford, East.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the recent statement on behalf of the European Economic Community regarding the postponement of the entry of European Free Trade Area countries into the Community, if it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to ask the agreement of Parliament to the signature of the Treaty of Rome until the successful conclusion of negotiations with those European Free Trade Area countries who have applied for admission.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the announcement by the Foreign Ministers of the six European Economic Community countries, that they cannot make any arrangement with Sweden, Austria and Switzerland before the end of 1963, affects his current negotiations for this country to join the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the statement my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal made to the House on 13th December.

If my hon. Friend read my Question again, he would see that it is susceptible to two very simple answers, either "Yes" or "No". Could he not bring himself to use one of these useful monosyllables?

As my hon. Friend knows, there are many questions which are not easily susceptible to the simple answer "Yes" or "No". The point in this case is that arrangements which will meet satisfactorily the legitimate concerns of our fellow members of E.F.T.A. must be among the conditions for our entry into the European Economic Community.

While I realise that this is not an easy question, will not the Minister agree that this is really the acid test of the Government's sincerity? Will he recognise that unless there is an assurance that the E.F.T.A. countries will be admitted into the European Economic Community, this is a matter which, because of its political as well as its economic implications, must affect the final decision of this House? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will extract from the European Economic Community a recognition that the E.F.T.A. countries will be admitted on terms acceptable to them?

As the hon. Member knows, the London communiqué set out what were the obligations, not simply of Britain towards the other partners of E.F.T.A., but of all the partners in E.F.T.A. We stand by the terms of the London communiqué.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what stage he has reached in agreeing with the European Economic Community upon the structure of the Agricultural Common Market Fund should the United Kingdom join the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in the negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the Common Market, he will resist the proposal that Great Britain should contribute to a European Economic Community agriculture fund in view of the burden that this would put on the consumer in terms of higher prices.

We accept the provisions of Regulation No. 25, by which a European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund was set up in accordance with Article 40 (4) of the Rome Treaty. Accordingly, if we join the European Economic Community, we shall both contribute to this fund and benefit from it. The level of consumer prices in the United Kingdom would not be dependent on the level of British contributions to the fund.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that the word "agricultural" here is slightly misleading yin that both reasonable price policies and the Agricultural Common Market Fund affect everyone in this country, both consumer and taxpayer, and the country's efficiency generally? Will he, therefore, ensure that we do not pay a contribution to this fund in proportion to our food imports, which would be far and away the largest in the Community?

I am aware of this problem and obviously this is a matter which will call for serious discussion in the Brussels negotiations. Indeed, it has already been the subject of such. The point which I was making in relation to the level of consumer prices was that it is clear that there is no direct relationship between the two.

Can my hon. Friend say when it is expected to reach this point in the Brussels negotiations? I understand that it has not yet been reached. Secondly, is it not the case that although prices in the United Kingdom will not depend upon our contribution to the fund, our contribution to the fund may well depend upon prices in the United Kingdom?

In reply to the second point, it will depend more upon world prices. The prices in the United Kingdom will be related to the Community prices. As to the question of whether this matter has been reached, I think that there has been discussion on it but I should require notice before giving a detailed answer.

Mr. Percy Browne.

May I ask a supplementary on the last Question, Mr. Speaker?

No. I hope that the hon. Member will please move on.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is asking for the right to re-negotiate any agreements reached over agriculture by the European Economic Community between the signing of the heads of agreement and the ratification of the Treaty of Rome by the United Kingdom if negotiations are completed to the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government.

This is an important problem which arises not only in respect of agriculture but over the whole field of Community action. We shall be raising it at an appropriate stage in the negotiations.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the position may arise when this country has initialled the heads of agreement and there will then be a hiatus until the Treaty of Rome is ratified, during which the agricultural policy of the Common Market countries involved may result in their agreeing upon terms for certain commodities amongst themselves? Will my hon. Friend, therefore, not accept that we must have the right to negotiate what they agree in this interim period?

I am sure that it would be right for us to be kept very closely informed and in touch with any such negotiations which arrive at a conclusion before our entry. It is, however, impossible at this stage to give any clear indication in relation to it. I have indicated that we are very much aware of the problem, but I do not think that we can seek a suspension of action within the Community during the period to which my hon. Friend has referred.

While I accept that we cannot ask for suspension, would not my hon, Friend agree that we must get this right? It is no good our initialling heads of agreement on matters about which we know nothing, which is what it would amount to.

I accept that. Obviously we should have to be fully informed on any of these matters when the time comes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what estimate he has made of the effect on the British cider and perry industry and of the consequent effects on British horticulture of Great Britain's entry into the Common Market; and what proposals he has made on this matter in the course of the negotiations.

These matters are still under discussion in the negotiations and I cannot make a statement on them at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the fact that British cider is made by a completely different process from cider made in France and Germany and that if we in this country have to conform to that very inferior product it will have a disastrous effect on the cider-drinking and cider-making communities and that this in turn will have a very adverse effect on the horticultural industry?

I understand those difficulties. The Commission is considering proposals for the harmonisation of food standards, and certainly, at the appropriate stage, we shall make our representations on this matter and make the views of the British trade, to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred, known to the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what increases in the price of wheat, fat cattle, fat sheep, wool, eggs and milk he now estimates as likely to result from the adherence of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community on the terms now proposed by the Government.

It is not possible to estimate the likely price changes because no decisions have yet been taken on the levels at which prices are to be harmonised in the existing Community, far less in an enlarged Community.

Does that mean that the Government are conducting these very important negotiations without any idea of the effects on food prices in this country?

No. It does not mean that any more than it means that we accept the estimates that the right hon. Gentleman himself has put forward.

Then may we know what the Government's ideas are?

I have already indicated that in fact we cannot give precise estimations. I think it is wrong to do so at this time.

Roughly?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have rough ones, I would say, in relation to the products mentioned, that both our market prices and our guaranteed producer prices for wheat are below the corresponding prices now obtaining in the Community; our producer prices for fat cattle and milk are within the Community's price range; and our price for eggs is above that range. Production of fat sheep and wool in the existing Community is small; therefore, no valid price comparisons are possible.

Would my right hon. Friend publish the Krohn report of the economic research group of the E.E.C. so that we can see what they say on the matter?

I should like to consider that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government are consulting the United States Government with a view to making joint representations to the European Economic Community concerning those aspects of the Community's agricultural policy which are contrary to the principles of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The Community's agricultural regulations have recently been examined by a General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Committee on which we, the Americans and many other countries, including Commonwealth countries, are represented. The Committee concluded that it was not possible as yet to make a final analysis of the effects of the regulations. It will examine further regulations as they come into force.

As two United States Ministers have now criticised the agricultural policy of the Community, and as our interests here coincide with those of the United States and the Commonwealth, would it not be a good idea if we made joint representations to the Community?

Our interests do not coincide precisely with those of the United States. We are, however, sitting in the Committee with the United States and with Commonwealth countries, which are separately represented.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the United Kingdom joins the Common Market, what time he would expect to elapse before arrangements could be completed for Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. Friend informed the House on 12th November, the Community has agreed to work out, before Britain's entry into the Community, appropriate measures in the field of trade relations with Hong Kong.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is great concern in the Colony regarding these negotiations and that if reasonable terms are not obtained for it, there could be serious unemployment? Will he keep in close consultation with the Government of the Colony during the coming months?

Yes, I am aware of the seriousness of the matter. The Colony has been represented by the attendance of an official at the negotiations and we are in close touch with the Governor throughout.

In view of the great importance of not introducing any further measure of discrimination as between the various members of the Commonwealth, could the hon. Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will not accept any arrangements for Hong Kong which are inferior to those negotiated for Singapore?

As we are at the present time in negotiation, I do not think that I should add anything to what I have already said.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, when he is giving his consideration to these matters, that Hong Kong is beautifully administered—that the administration is first-class, and that it does not cost this country one penny?

We are well aware of the excellence of the administration of Hong Kong.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many of the regulations of the Commission of the European Economic Community are concerned solely with the production and sale of foodstuffs; and how many are concerned with the production and sale of manufactured goods.

A total of 143 regulations were issued by the institutions of the European Economic Community up to the end of November, 1962. 116 of them relate to the production and sale of foodstuffs land 8 to the production and sale of manufactured goods.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that this is a very high proportion indeed of the regulations which are concerned with agriculture as opposed to industry, and does not this explain the misgivings of the farming community in this matter—that whereas for industry there is a pretty clear picture of what its future will be under the various arrangements, the future of agriculture is dictated very much by these very complicated regulations, over which this House, if we were to join the Community, would have no control? Therefore, will he see that, before we join, we do have more control over the drafting and formulation of these regulations?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a much larger proportion of regulations for agriculture for the reason that the Common Market in industry was largely defined in the Treaty of Rome, whereas the Common Market in matters concerning agriculture was left to be established very largely by regulations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has obtained in the course of his Brussels negotiations regarding the extent to which harmonisation of social security services has been achieved by the European Economic Community.

The Treaty of Rome does not specifically require the harmonisation of social security services but the Commission is considering what might be done in this field by co-operation between member Governments.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are complaints in certain quarters of limited information on this subject? If Britain were to enter the Common Market there would inevitably be harmonisation of our social services and this might lead to tighter Government control over details of insurance rights and policy conditions as are practised on the Continent? Is my hon. Friend aware that this in turn might lead to British pensions gradually moving towards the higher levels which prevail in Germany?

My hon. Friend will find that a good deal of information on this subject is published in the Commission's "Plan of Action" which has just appeared, but the fact is that the Comission is still working on this subject. There are no proposals for either compulsory harmonisation or uniformity. There is, however, to be a conference shortly to discuss this matter. Thereafter, no doubt, there will be further information about the Commission's intentions.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will insist on an agreement with our allies on proposals for negotiating a settlement with the Soviet Union as a condition which must be fulfilled before this country's collective defence obligations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation become operative.

No, Sir. The United Kingdom's obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty are clearly stated in Article 5 of the Treaty. I see no reason to qualify them in any way.

Does not the North Atlantic Treaty say that the collective defence obligations may be invoked only in cases of unprovoked aggression? Are not the Government, therefore, entitled to warn their allies that if they fail to agree with us on reasonable proposals for making peace and continue to pursue policies which we regard as dangerous and provocative, they cannot count upon British help? Would not that give us precisely the bargaining position, power and influence that the Government vainly seek by pretending to be a nuclear Power?

No, I do not for one moment acknowledge that that is the position in relation to our allies. Her Majesty's Government are very concerned to make progress with the Soviet Union and this year I have been constantly engaged with them. I should like to see a move from them to accommodate us and make it easier for us to make progress.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make available in the Library of the House copies of the text and maps defining the frontier between China and India, which was negotiated and authorised by His Majesty's Government of the time.

The Agreement defining the McMahon Line, dated 24th March, 1914, and the accompanying map are available in the Library.

While thanking the Minister for his capitulation, may I ask whether he is aware that when I first sought to obtain access to these documents and the map, I was told that they were documents of State and that the 50-year rule applied to them? Is it not absurd to apply this rule to documents which are in the possession of both the Chinese and the Indian Government?

I am happy at least to be able to assure the hon. Member that the documents are in the Library and available to him.

Will the Minister consider showing on the map the relative positions of the Chinese and Indian troops in 1954 and today?

That is another question.

Does the Minister's answer mean that The Times was right?

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America to inquire from the United States State Department whether any financial inducements are offered to European and other Governments to purchase arms from the United States of America in preference to weapons produced in the United Kingdom with similar capabilities.

I do not think any general inquiry as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman would necessarily be helpful.

Does the Minister decline to accept the implications contained in this Question? If he is not prepared to instruct the Ambassador in the United States to ask for information on this subject, will he inquire into the existence of American trade organisations, in Bonn, in Rome, and in other European capitals, of a private character which are responsible for the sale of arms, various weapons, and aircraft, and have managed to succeed in selling these arms in preference to British arms of similar capabilities, quite obviously because of some financial inducements of a private character?

No. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that an inquiry should be made about purchases which are wholly financed from military aid funds. The stipulation that in any such cases the equip- ment should be acquired from the country providing the funds is well-established practice. I do not think there can be any difficulty about that. It should also be remembered that many countries, including the United Kingdom, have benefited from the offshore purchase system.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am not referring to the military aid programme of the United States at all? I am referring to private sales of arms produced in the United States and sold in European capitals and various other countries—in preference to the purchase of British arms. Can the Minister explain why it is that British arms of similar capabilities, and sometimes superior to the American arms, are unable to be sold?

No. I think that without more specific indication of what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind it is difficult for me to help him. If he would like to write to me to put particular points, I should be happy to have a look at them.