asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on progress with the participation of the individual in the decision-making processes of national democracy.

asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on her policy regarding public participation in Government as distinct from decentralisation on devolution.

I have no statement on policy to make at present, nor do I expect to be in a position to make one for some little time. I am at present gathering information together about existing facilities for public involvement in the development and administration of public policy at various levels, and how they work in practice. I have also commissioned some research on the subject. I shall naturally wish to keep the House fully informed of future progress.

On the basis of charity beginning at home, will the Minister press her colleagues to make available to Members of Parliament all the documents submitted to the National Economic Development Council for the preparation and discussion of the so-called second National Plan, so that at least Members of Parliament will feel that they are participating in national decision-making?

Frankly, I think that this is more a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, but I am sure that they will note carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.

What research has been commissioned?

I have commissioned Mr. Ioan Davies of the University of Essex to gather together existing practice and machinery, because this is obviously the first stage for making an assessment about what further developments are required.

asked the Paymaster-General if she will make a statement on progress in dealing with the problems of youth.

The important thing is to assess the needs. I have started by examining the material provided by the Youth Enquiry under Lord Longford; and I have also begun the practice of arranging to meet groups of young people in the course of my visits round the country, to hear what they want to say. But I must stress that I regard my responsibilities with regard to young people as being primarily an aspect of the more general question of participation.

As the Prime Minister told me in the House that the right hon. Lady was to concern herself with all aspects of youth—and I think that she will recall that statement—could she say, for example, how she divides her responsibilities with those of the Ministry of Education over student unrest?

Particular questions relating to students within universities are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and for the university authorities, as was made clear in the debate in the House the week before last. I am concerned, however, with students as young people as distinct from their particular student rôle.

As the right hon. Lady regards this primarily as a matter for participation, will she accept from this side of the House that the form of participation which the people of this country want more than anything else is a General Election?

I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman has had quite the experience of hearing from the young people that I have had so far. I find that young people generally are concerned to be regarded as people with rights and responsibilities and with respect for many of the ideals that they share in common.

asked the Paymaster-General by what machinery she will submit evidence to the proposed Commission on the Constitution and its sub-committees.

This depends to some extent on the wishes of the Commission as to the nature and content of the evidence they require.

Has the right hon. Lady any intention of contributing information or advice to the Commission when it is eventually set up, or is she going to wait until she is invited to do so, if she is, by the Commission?

I think that that depends on what the Commission believe will be most helpful to it.

Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that the machinery referred to in this Question operates in the widest possible way, to make certain that a great selection of witnesses with experience of Scottish needs, present and future, are available for the Commission?

I am sure that when the Commission is finally appointed it will wish to carry out its work in such a way that it is able to take full account of all the views of those in Scotland and Wales, as well as in England.

asked the Paymaster-General what consultations she has had in Scotland on questions of devolution.

I have had no formal consultations.

As the Prime Minister indicated, though in very vague terms, that this was one of the Paymaster-General's main subjects, can the right hon. Lady tell the House when she intends to consult anyone in Scotland?

I think the hon. Gentleman will be very well aware that I work in the closest possible co-operation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. If formal consultations seem helpful at any stage, we shall have them. I think the hon. Gentleman will also agree that the Reports of the Wheatley and Maud Commissions will clearly be of great benefit to us when they appear in assisting our consideration of this issue.

asked the Paymaster-General if she is satisfied with the present arrangements for the operation of consumer consultative machinery; and if she will make a statement.

I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to consumer consultation in general, rather than to the arrangements within any particular field which may be the responsibility of one or other of my right hon. Friends. My inquiries so far suggest that there are wide variations both in the adequacy of the machinery and in the extent to which it is used effectively both by consumers and by those consulting them. I intend to study and discuss these further.

May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the Adjournment debate which took place last Thursday and ask her whether she is prepared to consider ways of increasing public awareness of this service, especially at local level?

I regard the communication of effective information as essential to the successful operation of any form of consumer consultative machinery and I shall certainly bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend during the Adjournment debate to which he referred.

asked the Paymaster-General whether, in the light of her work on matters concerning youth, she will inquire into and seek a solution of student unrest.

I certainly intend to find out all I can about the worries and aspirations of young people in general. But questions about students as such are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science; and we shall also have the benefit of the views of the Select Committee which is currently inquiring into this mutter.

In view of the epithets used by my right hon. Friend's colleague the Minister for Education and Science, are we likely to get much useful information in that fashion? In view of the absence of specific and factual information on the cause of student unrest, as my right hon. Friend is responsible for looking after youth, would it not be desirable for her to consult the representatives of student organisations?

I have, not only since my present appointment as Paymaster-General but over the last year, had a number of opportunities to talk to representatives of student organisations. My impression, which is shared by my right right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science and the Minister of State, as they made clear in the debate a week last Wednesday, is that there is undoubtedly a genuine and widespread desire among students to take rather more of a share in the management of various aspects of universities but as the Minister of State herself made clear in that debate these, inevitably, are matters that take some time to arrange, but we must give high regard to the efforts that the universities are making to meet the problem.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that those who are from time to time engaged in university affairs rather deplored the efforts by the Secretary of State to earn the plaudits of the Alf Garnetts of this world by his rather extreme statements in that debate? Does the right hon. Lady accept that the views put to her by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) have a good deal of substance in them, and that it is important that we should gain the confidence of these people if any progress is to be made?

The hon. Member is being extremely unfair in interpreting my right hon. Friend's remarks in that way. He was clearly differentiating between the objectives of a great many students and the methols which a very few of them are using from time to time. This is the distinction that we need to make, while recognising that this is a matter of genuine concern to the great majority of students.

Does my right hon Friend agree that an inquiry of this nature cannot be conducted on two separate fronts? Ought it not to be coordinated?

Yes. My hon. Friend will understand that on all matters in which I have some responsibility but in respect of which executive responsibilities are carried out by some of my right hon. Friends there is complete co-ordination and complete discussion at every stage.

Will the right hon. Lady, in her consultations with youth organisations, also consult the Young Conservatives, if necessary in the privacy of her own home?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the most enjoyable opportunities I have had recently in meeting a large gathering of young people was when I attended a function organised by the British Youth Council, at which Conservative, Liberal and Socialist students were all fully represented.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he is taking to reduce the number of non-industrial civil servants.

We continue to keep Departmental manpower requirements under regular and detailed scrutiny. The special reviews of Civil Service manning, under the leadership of Sir Robert Bellinger, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, are going forward, but Sir Robert and his colleagues must be permitted time to develop their views.

Is not the real way to secure a reduction to reduce the functions of government? Can the right hon. Lady say what action has been taken in that respect?

That raises general questions of public and, in particular, social policy. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will expect me to answer on that count in reply to his question.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many non-industrial civil servants are employed at the latest available date; and how this figure compares with the numbers employed a year ago.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what proposals he has for reducing departmental staff during 1969; and on what basis these will be reported to the House of Commons.

I would refer the right hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 24th January. A statement to the House on the size of the non-industrial Civil Service in 1969–70 will be made during the next few weeks.—[Vol. 776, c. 202.]

Does not that answer reflect the unhappy consequences of a lack of urgency apparent in the right hon. Lady's previous answer?

Not in the least. As I think the right hon. Gentleman is aware from the statement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the debate on the Fulton Report before Christmas, we are perfectly aware of the need to fulfil the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend just over a year ago. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that when the statement comes it will bear out our expectations.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that even in the Civil Service Department, which, as far as I can make out, is her Department, people are now publicly urging that there should be a much more radical approach to the whole business of control of staff and allocation of tasks and functions? Will the Minister look into the matter and report back to the House?

One of the main purposes of the new Civil Service Department is to assist in implementing some of the Fulton recommendations that bore on this point. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Fulton Committee had a great many things to say which bear on it. It is a matter for the civil servants in the Civil Service Department to assist in the kind of planning that will enable those expectations to be realised.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that since 1964 the number of civil servants has gone up by 58,300, and in local government by 323,000? Is she aware that her Answer is nothing but complacent in regard to the reduction proposed?

There is no complacency in this matter. A year ago my right hon. Friend gave a clear undertaking to the House, and this undertaking will be fulfilled. The hon. Gentleman might wish to refresh his memory of the Fulton debate before Christmas, when a number of the background factors were explained for specific increases over the last two or three years, in specific areas, most of which are concerned—and this is the important point to bear in mind—with giving a better public service to people throughout the social services.

Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.

Can my right hon. Friend explain how she reconciles the demands made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, acting as constituency Members, for all sorts of things in the social service, with the fact that they are not prepared to provide the staff to carry out their own demands?

I think that my hon. Friend points to a quality of the Opposition which we have observed frequently over the last two months in relation to the financial commitments they wish the Government to take on as well as the manpower commitments.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the pilot study of the unified grading structure.

At present, a good deal of essential information, including studies of the practice in large United Kingdom organisations and in the Civil Service of other countries, is being collected, and discussions on the form of further studies are taking place; I cannot yet say what form these will take.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this part of the Fulton Report has been called the core of it? Will she make sure that this is proceeded with as speedily as possible, since an impression has been given that parts of the Civil Service are not too happy about the implementation of this part of the Report which was accepted so wholeheartedly by the Prime Minister?

I assure my hon. Friend—and I agree that this is a vital part of the recommendations—that work on this is moving ahead. We are building up the investigating team, but, as the Fulton Committee was the first to realise, it is one of the lengthier recommendations, because it is one of the more fundamental ones, and it will take time to implement.

Will the right hon. Lady recognise that we realise that this is a recommendation which must take time fully to implement, but is it not a fact that it will be most unfortunate if the impression is given here of any dragging of feet, and that some beginning on the implementation of the Report ought to happen really soon?

It is beginning. As I said, the first step is to collect a lot of information. The second is to set up an investigating team to see what is going to be the best way to do this. It is going ahead. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no dragging of feet on this matter.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what action has been taken to integrate as closely as possible recruitment, training and career development within the Civil Service.

The main action taken, as the Fulton Report recommended, has been to integrate the Civil Service Commission with the new Civil Service Department set up on 1st November, 1968.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that questions of recruitment, training and promotion are interdependent? Will she try to ensure that in practice there is this inter-dependence at the earliest possible time?

I am sure that, as my hon. Friend says, this is part of the centre of the problem. I assure my hon. Friend that we are taking full account of that.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will set up a regular system for reporting to the House of Commons on savings being achieved in the administrative structure of government, consequently upon the implementation of the main proposals of the Fulton Committee Report.

My right hon. Friend announced on 21st November, 1968, that there will be regular progress reports, in connection with the Fulton recommendations, and more widely. The exact form, content and frequency of publication of these reports is still under consideration, but they will provide an opportunity to cover the kind of points raised by the hon. Member. I hope, however, he will be content to await the first report; savings, where possible, take time and effort to develop.

I recognise that, but will the right hon. Lady recognise that the prevailing assumption that the costs of Government activity must inevitably go on rising is quite unacceptable, and will she take urgent steps to see that the Departments have cost-reduction targets and savings targets, and will she ensure that reports on these are made to the House so that we know that administrative efficiency is going forward?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await the first Report. In terms of ceilings on costs, what the hon. Gentleman said as being unacceptable does not seem to be shared by some of his colleagues opposite, who continually demand fresh expenditure by the Government.

Will the progress reports include the industrial Civil Service?

They will include the question of the industrial Civil Service in so far as it seems to be completely relevant. I think it more likely that the Reports will be concerned primarily with the non-industrial Civil Service.

Will the right hon. Lady explain why the Government are always exhorting industries and institutions to prune staffs, including even the Bank of England, by bringing in McKinsey's, an American company, to do this, and yet they do nothing to prune staffs within their own Department?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman can be aware of the very considerable step which was taken by the Government last year in making a commitment that the ceiling of the Civil Service set in the Financial Secretary's Memorandum of last March would be strictly adhered to during the financial year 1968–69. That was a great step forward in recognising the matter.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what are the average hours per week for which ICL 1905 Government computers are utilised.

There are three ICL 1905 E computers in central Government, one for processing traffic tickets for the Metropolitan Police, another for operational research work within the Ministry of Defence, and a third for scientific work at the Ministry of Public Building and Works Building Research Station. The current average weekly hours of operation are 50, 40 and 48 hours respectively, with target operating hours of 100, 80 and 80 to be achieved by November, December and March of next year, respectively.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that many commercial firms operate their computers on the basis of three or four shifts? As the Minister's target amounts to double-shift working, is not this a grave waste of the use of computers?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it necessarily takes time to build up the full operating use of computers. The initial hours of operation, and the target operation hours, will fall to be reconsidered and extended as it becomes possible, and as the demand for the use of the computers increases.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps have been taken to implement the recommendations of the Fulton Report; and whether he will make a statement.

The House was given a comprehensive review of progress in the consideration and implementation of the Fulton Report during the debate on 21st November last. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on that occasion, the Civil Service Department will regularly publish reports as further progress is made. These will of course be made available to hon. Members.

With regard to the abolition of the class system in the Civil Service, which was referred to in that debate, has the Minister made any plan for implementing the suggestion by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that a list should be compiled of the high fliers and those of exceptional ability in order to ensure that full use will be made of the talent within the service?

The hon. Member will remember that part of our discussion during that debate—the point was made by hon. Members on this side of the House, too—concerned the question of high fliers and the importance of recognising them whenever they appear on the scene. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that point is very much in mind in the work that is going on.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he will take to ensure the protection of pension rights of men and of women leaving the Civil Service.

The protection of pension rights of those leaving the Civil Service is being considered in the light of the proposals in Chapter 6 of the White Paper: National Superannuation and Social Insurance and of the recommendations of the Fulton Committee.

When can we expect legislation on this urgent matter?

The White Paper makes clear the Government's intention, which is that there shall be legislation covering most aspects of the White Paper, if not all of them, during the course of next Session. It is important that the committee which is at present reviewing the Civil Service pension scheme in the light of the White Paper should be able to come to proper conclusions on the basis of the most careful consideration of this aspect.

May I reinforce the urgency of this matter? Since the White Paper is not due to be implemented until April, 1972, is there not a case for the Government's taking a lead in this matter—in terms of their position as managers of an occupational pension scheme—and providing for transferability or preservation much earlier than that?

We have already set a very good example. There is complete freedom of movement within the public sector and, for certain grades, classes and ages, outside the public sector. It is in the full awareness of the importance of the preservation of pension rights that the proposals in the White Paper have been put forward, but there are many details to be meshed into the Civil Service superannuation scheme.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether it is intended that men leaving the Civil Service before the age of 50 should be permitted to take a proportion of their pension rights as a lump sum.

Any established civil servant who has 10 years' reckonable service and who leaves for other employment which is approved for the purpose may have his accrued pension benefits frozen and paid to him on eventual retirement. This arrangement covers the lump sum as well as the pension itself.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have been accorded the benefit of this; concession?

I am afraid that I should need separate notice of that question, but I shall gladly supply the hon. Gentleman with the information later.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what he is doing to expand late entry to the Civil Service.

Widespread opportunities for this exist already and changes are made as required. But this recommendation by the Fulton Committee needs to be examined together with their other major proposals. The study of these involves examining the qualities and qualifications needed for different levels of work. This will provide the basis for decisions on levels and ages of recruitment taking into account our agreement with the Committee that the Service should remain one which most people enter for a full career.

When do the Government hope to make a statement on their discussions with the I.P.C.S. on this matter, especially to reinforce the under-staffing in the Inland Revenue?

That is a slightly separate question, but on all these matters we are having complete and full discussions and consultations with the staff side. The specific problem here is that there are a number of detailed matters to be considered in the context of working towards the Fulton Committee's objectives.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will expand the rôle of the Treasury Solicitor, and create a Head of the Legal Service.

This proposal and the Fulton Committee's other recommendations about the management of Civil Service legal work and staffs are being studied in consultation with the Treasury Solicitor and the Departments concerned.

Is this recommendation accepted in principle?

Our view is that we need to consider the recommendations as a whole and then to decide what exactly the functions of the Head of the Legal Service would be.

Did not the Fulton Commitee put forward a very strong case for attaching more importance to the work of the legal aspects of the Civil Service? Is the right hon. Lady aware that her answers might lead some people to feel that the Civil Service Department ought to try to make haste a little less slowly than at present with some of the suggestions that have been made?

The right hon. Gentleman should not draw that conclusion from my answers. We are now at the stage when, necessarily, a tremendous amount of work is going on within the Civil Service Department on all the Fulton Committee recommendations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated were accepted. It is very detailed work and it will inevitably be some little time before, on a number of these recommendations, we are able to report final conclusions to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose at the United Nations a further list of sanctions, including a blockade of Lourenço Marques, to be imposed on Southern Rhodesia.

No, Sir. We believe that Security Council Resolution No. 253 of 29th May, 1968, went to the practicable limit in present conditions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is growing concern and, possibly, a likelihood of further international embarrassment if we do not take one or other of these steps—to make sanctions work and work well, or stop the whole nonsense?

The question of breaches of mandatory sanctions imposed by the Security Council is, of course, a matter for the Security Council. My hon. Fries policy on the implementation of recent Communiqué the efforts to be made by all to make sanctions work. This is what we are trying to do.

Since the Government's action in this matter is taken, self-confessedly, from a moral standpoint, was the hon. Gentleman's Answer given on moral grounds or on practical grounds?

It is hard to differentiate, but there certainly are both moral and practical grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will discuss with the Portuguese Government proposals to supervise and enforce sanctions against Rhodesia in Mozambique.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the Security Council.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it in intolerable that Portugal, our oldest ally, a partner inside E.F.T.A. and inside N.A.T.O., should be circumventing sanctions? Would he press Portugal to have a United Nations presence in Mozambique to supervise goods going out of Lourenço Marques and the railway line from South Africa to Rhodesia through Mozambique?

I would suggest to my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, that breaches of mandatory sanctions are a matter for the Security Council. Portugal is aware of our views on this subject.

In view of the contacts which exist between our Portuguese allies and the Rhodesian Government, have her Majesty's Government considered making use of Portugal's good offices to bring forward a settlement? Will the hon. Gentleman dissociate himself entirely from the gunboat mentality expressed by some of his hon. Friends?

As I have said, we have constant consultations with friendly Governments. Clearly, this is a matter which has been raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to arrange that Mr. Anthony Lee or another British Administrator remains in Anguilla and continues to work for an accommodation between the people of Anguilla and other peoples of the St. Kitts Nevis-Anguilla group.

I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 5th February.—[Vol. 777, c. 127–9.]

Since Her Majesty's Government are responsible for the foreign affairs of Anguilla, would the hon. Gentleman not take steps to see that communications are kept open between the people of Anguilla and foreign countries, and particularly that Her Majesty's mail is not stopped?

I would not deny that we are responsible for foreign affairs, but this issue is an internal affair. We have taken steps to maintain consultations and links with the people of Anguilla.

Why did the Government reject the proposition made in December that a Minister should go out to Anguilla and St. Kitts to try to resolve this difficulty? He could have gone in the Recess. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on this side are becoming increasingly critical of the Government's handling of this situation and of the consequences which are about to follow as the result of their inaction? What action will they take?

The possibilities, of course, for further mediation are limited by the constitutional position. I am glad to say that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be visiting the Associated States of the Eastern Caribbean later this month and will take up these matters. As to whether he will visit Anguilla, that will depend on his discussions on the spot. Mr. Lee will be there and involved with him.

Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that aid to this small community has been cut off? Is this not somewhat unfair, bearing in mind the nature of the dispute in the first place? What positive steps are being taken by the Government to end this unhappy affair?

On the latter point, I have said that my hon. Friend will be visiting the area later this month. As to the development aid, it is allocated to the State of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla as a whole by Parliament, and the consent of the State Government is, therefore, necessary for part of it to be given direct to Anguilla. The State Government's consent was obtained during the interim settlement period but was withdrawn with the termination of the interim settlement.

Because of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy on the implementation of recent recommendations of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The recommendations passed at the recent session of the Assembly will be considered in due course by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office please come off the fence on this issue and stop equivocating? Is he not aware that the Council of Europe overwhelmingly called for suspension, as did the Labour Party Conference and the majority of back benchers on this side? Will he stop equivocating and say that he will support the call for suspension?

The Question relates to the total recommendations, of which I think there were twelve, passed recently by the Assembly of the Council of Europe, and the appropriate procedure is to put them to the Council of Ministers. There is another Question on the Paper specifically on the recommendation about Greece and I should not, at this stage, anticipate that reply.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will change his mind, since I was going to ask him, would he not recommend the Greek Government, as the best course, to make a voluntary withdrawal, not from the Council, but from the Assembly, to which, in any case, as they have no Parliament, they can send no Parliamentary delegation?

I understand that no Parliamentary representatives from Greece have sought to take seats in the Assembly. The withdrawal, of course, is one of the points in the Assembly recommendation which will be considered in due course by the Council of Ministers.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that as the delegation to the Assembly is composed from both sides of this House, and that, with possibly just one abstention, the delegates voted as a whole for the suspension of Greece, this strengthens the Government's hand? Would he take firm action on it?

There is no doubt that the overwhelming vote—94 for, 11 against, with 20 abstentions—was a very vigorous expression of view by the Assembly, which I imagine that all Ministers, when they deliberate on this, will bear very much in mind.

Will the Minister take note that some of us on this side think that on this issue the Government for once have not been equivocating but have made their position fairly clear, and that there was not an overwhelming vote for the suspension of Greece? I trust that he will look very carefully at the recommendation adopted by the Council of Europe. The matter is in the hands of the Council of Ministers, and I trust that they will use their common sense.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman's adverse comments were not addressed to me, since I studiously sought to avoid expressing views about the suspension or the resolution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will convene an international conference to discuss the Nigerian situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now convene an international conference to discuss the Nigerian situation.

We have always made clear our desire to help in any way we can. We have taken an active part in a number of efforts to try to achieve a settlement, one of which was during the recent Commonwealth conference. Initiatives have also been taken by others, all so far without success. I do not think that this suggestion would bring any of these efforts nearer success.

Is it not clear that the only outcome of the Government's policy will be the continued escalation in the supply of arms to both sides? Therefore, will not the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an early meeting with both the French and the Russian Governments so as to stop this terrible aggression?

We should be very clear that we cannot dictate the course of events in Nigeria, that we gave up responsibility for Nigeria at the time of granting its independence, and that it will help no one, least of all the Nigerians themselves, if we pretend that we can solve the dispute for them.

Why do not the Government at least attempt to secure a joint ban? Secondly, will the Under-Secretary ascertain the Soviet position? I understand that, whilst opposed to unilateral action, they are prepared to play if others play.

There is a further Question on the Order Paper dealing with arms and I should prefer to take that up when that Question is dealt with.

Bearing in mind the continuing international concern which is widely shared in this country for the plight of civilians in the war-stricken areas, cannot the hon. Gentleman say whether the present position still is that the Federal Nigerian Government are ready to allow daily flights into the Ibo heartland but that Colonel Ojukwu is not?

Yes; this is, in fact, the precise position. The need to get relief in quantity, it is clear—and this need will increase over the months—means that daily flights or a surface route must be opened up. So far, on military and stategic grounds, it has not been possible to suggest anything to either side which either would accept.

Will my hon. Friend consider that while he and other members of the Government constantly say that this is a matter for the Africans to settle, if this war is fought to a finish with a massive supply of arms from the Great Powers it will be an utterly disastrous precedent for Africa as a whole?

I would not like to give the impression that nothing is being done. Only last week the French-speaking African States at the Conference in Kinshasa appointed two Heads of State, one to visit Colonel Ojukwu and one to visit General Gowon. They will be reporting back to the Conference of O.A.U. Ministers at the end of the month. The Emperor's Consultative Committee is due to meet at the end of the month.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Russian Ambassador regarding the Middle East.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has just visited the United Arab Republic, the Sudan and Morocco. His visit has not been discussed with the Soviet Ambassador.

Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, during his right hon. Friend's discussions with the Russian Ambassador in January, the Russian Ambassador argued that the Government of Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories in the Middle East? Can he also tell us whether the Foreign Secretary suggested to the Russian Government that that was a matter for the Government which had itself withdrawn from occupation of Czechoslovakia?

As the House knows, the Soviet Ambassador called on my right hon. Friend on 2nd January and made a communication about the Middle East. Later in the month my right hon. Friend gave our reply to the charge d'affaires. Many of the Russian proposals are constructive and we asked for clarification on a number of issues, but it would be wrong in this diplomatic exchange between Governments for the full content of them to be published without the consent of the other party.

My right hon. Friend has referred to the Minister's visit to the Middle East. But his right hon. Friend the Minister of State only visited the Arab countries. Why did his visit exclude Israel? How is it possible for the Government to make up their mind about a solution of the Middle East problem if Ministers direct their attention only to the Arab countries and avoid Israel?

As has been explained in answer to Questions, my right hon. Friend's visit was planned a long time ago. It was not in the context of the current four-Power talks. It was in order to give him first-hand acquaintance with some of the countries for which he is responsible in the Department. On the question of visits to Israel, as was said last week, this is under consideration but there are no plans at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

All concerned have now replied to the proposal of the French Government that a meeting of the representatives on the Security Council of the United States, the Soviet Union, France and the United Kingdom should be held to discuss ways and means of achieving a settlement in the Middle East. We expect that preliminary discussions to prepare the ground for such a meeting, in the first instance on a bilateral basis, will shortly begin.

Does my hon. Friend regard that as a statement? Are we to understand that the Government have no definite policy about the Middle East and how to solve the problem between the Israelis and the Arab States? Or are they waiting until the American cat jumps? Is my hon. Friend aware that the conditions stated by the Soviet Union will not be acceptable to either the Government or the people of Israel?

I can understand my right hon. Friend's impatience; indeed, his indignation. I would have thought that what I have said and what is happening represent a considerable step forward from the previous impasse. However, it would be unhelpful for us at this stage to comment on the lines of a settlement or on specific questions of substance.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that there are still a number of Arab leaders who are hoping and working for a political settlement along the lines of the Security Council resolution but that their position is being made rapidly impossible by the failure to make progress on the resolution, and, in particular, by the insistence of the Israeli Government on permanently incorporating large areas of conquered Arab territory?

What nonsense!

Will he try to reach agreement with the four Powers, first on a timetable for implementing the resolution—

My hon. Friend should be ashamed of himself.

and thereafter perhaps on agreement to withdraw arms supplies from any countries which decline to carry out that timetable?

I should emphasise that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that there cannot be a settlement without agreement among the parties. The object of the four Powers meeting is to seek ways and means of furthering the work of Dr. Jarring to isolate and define the areas of agreement and disagreement, and to proceed in this fashion.

Can my hon. Friend assure us that the Secretary of State himself will go to these very important meetings?

I cannot give that assurance.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there will be wide- spread support for the insistence by the Government and by the United States Government that these four-Power discussions should be carried on under the aegis of the United Nations? Will he further accept that there is confidence that the Government will see to it that the security interests of all Middle-Eastern States will be fully safeguarded?

Would not my hon. Friend agree that some of the heat might be taken out of the situation in the Middle East if when aggression were committed by either side we showed equal concern, not just when it happened to be Israel attacking Arab countries?

We are always concerned about anything which is harmful to the cause of peace and we equally condemn anyone who takes such initiatives.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding proposals for tariff reductions between existing members of the European Community and countries which have applied for membership.

No such proposals have been made. We are prepared to consider any proposals put to us in this field provided they come from the Community as a whole, and as long as they are linked with our objective of full membership of the European Communities.

Is it not regrettable that the Government should have so comported themselves that the French Foreign Minister was able to say that it was pointless to discuss tariff reductions in view of the British Government's disinterest in the matter? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this disinterest stems from orders from the United States Government or from fears about the balance of payments, or both?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our position is based not on either of the grounds that he has mentioned but on the fact that we want to become members of the European Community. This is the view of this House and it has been the official policy of all three major parties represented here.

If the E.E.C. countries are really willing to discuss reductions in industrial tariffs between the E.E.C. and E.F.T.A. without agricultural conditions, surely we ought wholeheartedly to support this? Why are the Government hesitating?

This is all hypothetical. There are no such proposals. We shall be very happy to consider the proposals, if they meet our conditions, when they come along.

Is not the position this, that the French Government have made certain proposals, the German Government have made other proposals, that the two are slightly different, but that nothing has come from the Six as a whole?

There have been no such proposals from the Six. We should be very happy to see them coming along.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider initialing a conference between British Commonwealth and European Free Trade Association countries.

No, Sir. I am not aware of any widespread wish, either among Commonwealth countries or members of the European Free Trade Association, for such a conference.

I hope my right hon. Friend is aware that there is such a desire now. Is he aware that many of us feel that it is about time the Government gave up chasing this will-o-the-wisp of the Common Market? They seem to be obsessed by this mirage. If they have not thought of having a conference between people who have been so close to us over the years like the E.F.T.A. countries and the British Commonwealth of nations, it is about time they did.

I do not think we need a conference for it to be known that we have very great support from our Commonwealth friends and our friends in E.F.T.A. The purpose of such a conference would be to bring the economic activities of the two sets of Governments together. Although the recent meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers discussed the world economic situation, there was no pressure from any source for a conference of this kind.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposition put forward in this Question would have the implications of a much wider and much more imaginative trading area than anything the Government are thinking about at the moment?

It is a matter of opinion. The economic interest and state of development of Commonwealth countries is very varied indeed. Secondly, it would not be for this country to take the initiative in calling a Commonwealth conference. That procedure is well-established as one for the Secretary-General after consultation with the Commonwealth Governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what further economic action he proposes to associate Malta more closely with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

An open-ended group, in which the United Kingdom Permanent Representative plays his part, was set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation last year, under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General, to further consultations between the Alliance and Malta. Malta's relations with the Alliance are a matter for member Governments collectively and the Malta Government.

As a step towards this, in view of the friendly co-operation of Malta in the past, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to extend an invitation to them to join the European Free Trade Area?

I do not see that questions about the Free Trade Area arise from a Question about N.A.T.O.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals to create institutionalised relations between the countries of the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom were agreed at the recent Western European Union meeting at Luxembourg.

Six delegations agreed that before taking any decisions on certain foreign policy questions they will consult with their Western European Union partners to further the adoption of positions agreed and harmonised to the fullest possible extent. The French delegation said that it would make its views known later.

Might not the proposal that N.A.T.O. ambassadors be used as a standing group serve this purpose?

I do not think that the ambassadors within N.A.T.O. would necessarily be appropriate, because N.A.T.O. is not a strictly European organisation. The machinery proposed is that of the Council of Western European Union, which is most appropriate for this purpose. As hon. Members will have noted, my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has asked for early consultations in this area on the whole question of the Middle East.

In view of the great importance of this new departure, will my right hon. Friend publish a White Paper explaining exactly what was agreed and the trend of the discussion that took place?

It would be a little early to publish a White Paper, but I will certainly pass on my right hon. Friend's suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I very much hope that we can make progress, but it is as yet too early to say until the new machinery has been firmly established.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes have now been made in the Hong Kong Public Order Ordinance regarding the extent to which the burden of proof is placed on the authorities.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave to him on 19th December, 1968.—[Vol. 775, c. 451.]

Did not the reply say that certain changes were under consideration? Was this a pious hope or is there to be any amendment to ensure that the burden of truth lies with the authorities?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no pious hope. It is a reality. The question of time has been considered in examining the Ordinance and bringing it up to date in terms of the representations which have been made to us so that we may ensure that the matter is got right and is amended adequately.

Can my hon. Friend say how many people in Hong Kong are still in gaol without any charge having been preferred against them?

Not without notice.

Will the Minister resist pressure for the Hong Kong Government to alter or amend the Emergency Regulations until the Governor is satisfied that the situation is good enough to enable him to make such alterations?

We are talking about two distinct matters. There are some elements of the Emergency Regulations included in the Ordinance. Under examination is the Ordinance itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when building of the new Government House in the Solomon Islands was first approved; and what it will cost.

In July 1966. The estimated total cost, as given by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs, to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 17th January 1968, was $A300,000.—[Vol. 756, c. 617.] A more recent estimate from information available here is $A328,000. This includes offices and furnishings and approximately $A63,000 for staff housing.

Is not this a rather scandalous waste of money considering the desperately poverty-stricken state of the territory and the fact that a traditional, if rather old, Government House already exists there?

I cannot accept that it is a waste of money because the replacement of the present Government House, which was a temporary wartime construction, has been delayed for many years on financial grounds and to give priority to other developments. I believe that it is essential now that we should construct a new building for the High Commissioner and his staff.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Government House was practically falling to bits when I was there six years ago and that its replacement is long overdue.

I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's assurance on this point.

Is the assistance of the Duncan Review Committee leading to any review of building operations at present being undertaken?

The Duncan Review Committee is taking into account accommodation as well as services provided. However, we will not get its report for another three months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions he has now given to the United Kingdom representative at the Council of Europe on the question of the suspension of Greece from membership of the council.

No instructions have yet been issued. We shall decide our attitude in consultation with our allies.

Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government made up their mind and stated their view on this issue, bearing in mind the content of the resolution passed on this subject at the Council of Europe's last session?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not simply a case of approving or disapproving of a resolution or recommendation. The recommendation in questions asks the Council of Ministers, after passing on the content of the resolution to the Greek Government, to take appropriate action. It also calls on the Greek Government to take action before coming to this request to the Council of Ministers. Since the Council of Ministers is not likely to meet until May and since this matter will not be considered further until next month in Strasbourg, there is time for consultation before these meetings, and it therefore seems right to us that that should happen.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the strong feelings expressed at the Consultative Assembly in Strasbourg by people representing a very wide range of political opinion in connection with the utter undesirability of Greece remaining a member of a democratic assembly?

The Council of Ministers must consider the recommendations which are put to it by the Assembly. I do not think that my hon. Friend was present at a somewhat earlier stage when I said that there was an overwhelming vote for the recommendation—there were 92 for and 11 against—registered by those participating in the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to review the treaty provisions with the State of Nepal regarding recruitment and pension rights of Gurkha troops.

No, Sir. The Memorandum of Agreement and associated documents which govern the recruitment and terms of service of the Gurkhas continue to work satisfactorily.

Would the Under-Secretary assure the House that there will be facilities for recruiting, that they will continue into the 'seventies and that the pension rights of retired Gurkhas will in future be safeguarded?

Questions relating to recruiting figures and pension rights should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.