asked the Minister for the Civil Service what study he has made of the changes in law affecting the provision of retirement benefits in public and private occupational pension schemes which will be needed to remove obstacles to free movement into and out of the Civil Service.

The Government's intention to legislate to preserve occupational pension rights generally was stated in Chapter 6 of the White Paper on National Superannuation and Social Insurance (Cmnd. 3883), and the consequential changes needed in the Civil Service scheme will be considered during the current review of it. This should go far to removing obstacles to movement into and out of the Civil Service.

Do the Government accept that there is no way of making public sector schemes compatible with private sector schemes unless all private sector schemes are allowed to give lump sum options on retirement?

I could not wholly accept this. Indeed, our proposals for preservation should make a great deal of difference to the freedom of people to move in and out. However, I think that the Government would be ill-advised to move in an ad hoc way on this point in advance of the review.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a further statement as to the review of Civil Service pension arrangements which he is undertaking in the context of the Government's proposals for national superannuation.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me an opportunity to clarify a reply I gave to a supplementary question he asked on 28th April. There is no intention of altering benefits earned by service in the existing Civil Service scheme up to the date on which any revised scheme is introduced. But changes in the present terms for service thereafter may well be necessary in order to take account of the greatly increased benefits that will be payable under our new earnings-related scheme. This matter will be fully considered during the review to which the right hon. Gentleman refers.

I thank the right hon. Lady for clearing up what was a wholly inadvertent slip in reply to a supplementary question. Is she aware, in respect of the Civil Service itself, that the possession of a non-contributory pension earned throughout life is a matter of very great importance, and will she defend the rights of the Service against having to sacrifice that in return for an expensive contributory scheme?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I think that two points should be made clear. First, the White Paper itself makes very clear the context of the review that is taking place. Second, there is a difference between reserved rights and accrued rights. The staff side has been given a complete assurance that the Government do not intend to alter the benefits afforded by service in the past, but when we come to consider the new scheme there are a number of things which must be looked at together, and it is this review which is of the greatest importance to all those members of the Civil Service.

Broadening the Question a little, does the right hon. Lady not recognise that this would be a good opportunity to re-examine the question of the notional funding of Civil Service pensions so that the true cost of the pensions can fall in the year in which the service is actually incurred?

The whole question of the eventual arrangements for pensions for the Civil Service looked at in the light of the new superannuation proposals of the Government must be seen in the context of the whole of the White Paper and its attitude to funding. I cannot think that it would be sensible to regard it separately.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will ensure that those Government Departments which pay the fees of children at private schools do so at the same rate.

Boarding school allowances are paid at the same rates except to the staff of the Diplomatic Service for whom the 1964 Plowden Committee on Representational Services Overseas recommended higher rates on the ground that the nature of their careers warranted special treatment. Allowances towards the cost of private day school fees overseas are paid at the same rates for all children.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this £5½ million a year of rather dubious public expenditure needs criticising rather closely to find out whether it is being spent in schools which co-operate? Will she explain a little more clearly why the Diplomatic Service needs to be remunerated at a rate which is nearly twice as generous as that, for instance, for members of the Armed Forces?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, the point is that the Armed Forces and most home civil servants overseas serve in places where schools are provided by the Ministry of Defence, whereas members of the Diplomatic Service have no choice but to send their children to boarding schools in this country if they are to be educated under the British system.

Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind that the only boarding facilities generally available in this country are at private fee-paying schools, and that those private fee-paying schools contributed approximately £40 million to our balance of payments last year?

Indeed, knowing, as he does, of volume 1 of the Newsom Public Schools Commission the hon. Gentleman, I am sure, will be aware of a number of considerations affecting this matter.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement as to the circumstances in which, under the regulations now operating in the Civil Service, Permanent Secretaries have authority to overrule the decisions of Ministers.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th May to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan).—[Vol. 784, c. 65–6.]

Does it follow that if a Minister wishes to get out of a pledge given upstairs, there are better ways of doing it than trying to hide behind his civil servant?

I should think that nobody was more familiar with the convention governing this matter than the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he is well aware that neither Ministers nor civil servants are above the law. Indeed, he would be the last person to wish to change that.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service (1) how many senior policy advisers have now been appointed to Departments in accordance with the recommendations of the Fulton Committee;

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the appointment of senior policy advisers.

No posts with the title of policy adviser have been created since the report but many Departments have one or more senior officers with a recognised responsibility for advising on future policy. Seven major Departments, a list of which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, have central planning machinery on the lines set out in the Fulton Report, and it is being developed elsewhere. Many other Departments have specialised and, in some cases, highly developed planning machinery but on different lines suited to their own needs.

Was not that innovation one of the central and more radical propositions in the Fulton Committee's Report which the Prime Minister accepted in this House? In any case, is not the question of long-term policy, from the point of view of the Government, one of the highest priority? Would it not be right to say that one of the things of which the Government are most urgently in need is some indication of the right direction in which to go beyond next week?

The Committee recommended that there should be a re-alignment within Departments of the present method by which Ministers receive advice in terms of long-term policy, and I think that what the hon. Gentleman recognises—because I have answered Questions on this in the House a number of times—is that many Departments are now considering their own detailed needs in the light of Fulton, but it is a little too early for a total and clear general picture to emerge.

While not asking for a general picture, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she accepts that there is room for experimentation? One is not asking for senior policy advisers to be established in every Department, but at any rate a start could be made, and will my right hon. Friend take note of that?

Yes, Sir. As I am sure my hon. Friend with his great knowledge of these matters knows, what happens now is that Ministers have direct access to senior officials concerned with future policy. This was a fundamental of the Fulton recommendation, but certainly I take note with great seriousness of what my hon. Friend has said.

In the light of the Minister's answer, is it not clear that what is happening is nothing? Is it proposed to set up senior policy advisers, or not?

It is not the case that nothing is happening. We are moving very rapidly on some of the Fulton recommendations. Others are bound to take more time. In relation to some of the other questions which the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) asked me, things are already happening. Planning units are already being set up in a number of Ministries.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps he has taken to introduce the principle of management by objective into the Civil Service.

A system of management by objectives has been introduced in one area of the Ministry of Defence, and three other projects have been started. The subject is included in central and departmental training programmes, and a special training course for practitioners will start in the autumn.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that very encouraging reply. May I ask whether she has studied the booklet published by Centre for Administrative Studies which shows how the scheme can be extended into a number of other Departments?

Yes, Sir. I have seen it, and with great interest. I assure my hon. Friend that pilot schemes will continue to be mounted to the maximum extent that available resources permit. We are very anxious to pursue this.

Will the right hon. Lady accept that to some of us that reply is not at all that encouraging? Is she aware that the key to management by objective is the employment of more qualified people, particularly accountants, in the Civil Service to identify and cost objectives? How many more accountants have been employed by the Civil Service in recent months?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave last time I was subjected to Questions, because that gave the full details of the information that he requires. What I think hon. Gentlemen opposite accept and realise is that if we are to make a good job of implementing Fulton it must be done with the greatest care and in a way which ensures that no mistakes are made along the road. To some extent that is compatible with speed, to some extent it is not.

asked the Paymaster-General if she will hold consultations with local, regional and national authorities to ascertain what difficulties prevent responsible persons from taking an active part in local, regional or national government.

No, Sir. As my hon. Friend is aware, the Report of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission considers this question in some depth, and we shall now be considering its conclusions about them.

Are not some of my right hon. Friend's duties concerned with participation at all levels? Will she give an assurance that, in seeking to provide some solution to this phased participation, she will not be misled into thinking that all those who object to Government decisions, either locally or nationally, are ready to take part in the sometimes irksome duties of Government?

Yes, indeed. When we come to consider in depth the conclusions of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, the whole question of how we can best increase direct democracy at grass roots level is bound to occur, and certainly to me.

asked the Paymaster-General what consideration she has given, and what proposals she has made, to ensure that Members of Parliament can take a more effective part in local and regional government.

I shall be glad to consider, together with my right hon. Friends, any particular proposals my hon. Friend has in mind.

Will the scope of the Parliamentary year fall within these considerations and, indeed, the difficulties experienced by many Members of Parliament of taking an effective part in their constituencies by having to spend five days a week trapesing through the Lobby in this House?

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that there are two views about this. It is very much a matter for hon. Members to consider where the balance of advantage lies in terms of time in the House of Commons and time in their constituencies, particularly in relation to the structure of local government which emerges following the Redcliffe-Maud consultations?

Would it not be wise if hon. Members opposite who do not want to go through the Lobby were encouraged to carry out their desires, and then we should have a completely new and a good Government?

Perhaps the need to go through the Lobby so frequently would not arise if the Opposition were not somewhat confused in their own mind.

Getting back to the serious aspect of the question, is my right hon. Friend aware that with the enlarging of local authority units on the basis of the report, and on the question of closer participation of people, there is a great deal of merit in this question, and will she look at the matter more closely, because if democracy is to exist in a situation of that kind a greater interlocking of Parliamentary and local government is required?

I hope that nothing I have said indicates that we are not prepared to look at this very closely. What I was saying was that we need to see what eventual structure emerges for local government, and then there will be a number of questions, not merely for the Government, but for hon. Members, to consider.

asked the Paymaster-General what consultations she has had with the Commission on the Constitution regarding the submission of evidence.

None, Sir. The Corn-mission has announced its readiness to receive evidence from all who wish to submit it, and no doubt those concerned are now proceeding accordingly. The submission of written evidence from Government Departments has already begun.

Have the Government offered to provide factual and statistical information to the Commission, and does the Paymaster-General herself, in her devolution rôle, propose to offer any other evidence to the Commission?

As I said, the submission of written evidence from Government Departments has begun, and it consists entirely of factual descriptions of existing functions of the Departments and of their structure so far as these are relevant to the matters of the Commission is considering. It is a little too early to say anything about the submission of evidence by Ministers.

Will the Government's evidence be made available in the Library?

I am prepared to consider that, but so far we have not reached the stage of assuming that this naturally followed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that, as the result of the building of the airstrip at Mahé in the Seychelles, a number of householders have had their homes compulsorily acquired with inadequate compensation resulting in their inability to find alternative accommodation; and if he will take steps to help in these circumstances.

Compensation for the acquisition of land required for the airport was carefully assessed in each case, and all owners had the opportunity of recourse to a statutory arbitration board. Compulsory acquisition notices were served on 59 property owners. Eighteen accepted compensation without dispute, one case has been decided by the board, and 23 others have been settled by amicable agreement. There are special circumstances in the outstanding cases, and they will be decided by the arbitration board.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local island government has denied any legal obligation at all to rehouse, and, in the case of Pointe la Rue, has he heard that families are living in the open under rocks, and in some cases in business premises?

My information is that all those families who required assistance and resettlement were given it in the form of free transport, free labour, and, in most cases, free material to enable them to move their houses, while those tenants who did not receive compensation and those families who had been unable to make alternative plans were settled on Government housing estates. Many of the families have been living in this accommodation for as long as six or seven months rent free, but permanent resettlement arrangements are being implemented as rapidly as circumstances permit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulties of the Seychelles in relation to fisheries due to the encroachment by large foreign trawlers and the absence of modern cold storage facilities; and if he will take steps to assist the islanders to protect and improve their fishing industry, in view of its importance to their standard of living.

Yes, Sir. As to assistance, we are exploring what additional measures are required. The Seychelles Government are already preparing schemes for the construction of a cold store for fish in Victoria and the purchase and operation of a long range fishing boat to act as an escort vessel to smaller boats and to supply fish to the cold store.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Japanese have a large mother ship with many small trawlers around the Seychelles and that crews from those ships go ashore and buy the things which are badly needed by the islanders? Will he make arrangements for the islanders to have some proportion of the cash, as he will know that fish is the main source of protein for the islanders? Finally, will he help the establishment of an up-to-date cold storage?

As I have said, there are plans for an up-to-date cold store, and, in view of the urgent need for a regular supply of fish to the Seychelles, the Governor is reviewing this and all means of helping the fishing industry. As to foreign trawlers, the United Kingdom delegation to the F.A.O. Commission on Fisheries Bodies is aware of the problem which could be created for the Seychelles by the operation of foreign ships, but I understand that the presence of large foreign vessels have not so far affected the Seychelles fishing industry since its boats are small and not capable of a very long range.

Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the undesirability of these islands becoming wholly dependent on tourism, which the construction of the air strip may well assist, and that it becomes the more necessary to assist indigenous industries?

This is very well known to the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now publish a White Paper on the Anguilla operation.

No, Sir.

As the allegations of murder, arson and significant gun running have now all proved, through answers from the hon. Gentleman himself, to have been totally misleading, is it not time that the Government should bare their breasts and publish a White Paper about the whole of the Anguilla operation?

On 23rd April my right hon. Friend undertook to consider giving more detailed information and in what form that might be given, but he later suggested that the information given to the House was adequate. He said on 5th May that he did not find the amount of fresh argument for a White Paper very impressive.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on Anguilla.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) on 23rd May.—[Vol. 784, c. 152–3.]

But in that reply the island of Anguilla was referred to as part of the Unitary State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla. How does that square with the hon. Gentleman's undertaking when he arrived in Anguilla that the islanders should not live under an administration which they did not like? Can this double talk be cleared up now once and for all?

This is quite clear. Anguilla is legally and constitutionally still part of the State of St. Kitts, Nevis and Anguilla.

When are the new elections likely to take place on the island?

It is too early to be definite about this. An advisory council has been established and is functioning very well.

The hon. Member has said that the information given to the House by the Foreign Secretary was, in the Foreign Secretary's opinion, adequate, but the trouble is that it was not accurate. Will he therefore accede to my hon. Friend's request and to the request of this side of the House that we should have the accurate information? The House is due this after the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman.

It is evident from all the information given to the House that not even the most rudimentary lawful agency for the enforcement of law and order existed on the island. There was a legal vacuum which caused the whole of the Caribbean great concern. In those circumstances, Her Majesty's Government took the action that they did.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made by the United Nations representative in arranging for the act of free choice in West Irian.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made by the United Nations representative in making arrangements for the act of free choice in West Irian; and if he will make a statement.

As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State explained in reply to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 24th March, the arrangements for the act of free choice in West Irian are the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia. In due course, the United Nations Secretary-General is to report to the General Assembly on the arrangements which are made.—[Vol. 780, c. 200–1.]

But would my right hon. Friend not agree that this was and still is an important experiment under the aegis of the United Nations in transferring a colonial territory from its former status either to independence or to becoming part of another State? Are the Government entirely satisfied that the United Nations is exercising its authority to the fullest and most helpful extent possible?

The arrangements which the United Nations approved and to which we were party, with other members of the organisation, were that the two Governments concerned—those of Indonesia and the Netherlands—should come together to arrange for an act of free choice. The Secretary-General was then asked to advise, assist and participate in the preparation of this act and its operation. He will in due course be reporting, in the sense that my hon. Friend has asked this afternoon, to the General Assembly; at that point, no doubt, we shall have our own comments to make, if necessary.

In the meantime, may we have an assurance that the Foreign Office will resist following the lead of the Press in jumping to the conclusion that the West Irianese rebels are in the right and that the Indonesian Government in Djakarta are necessarily wrong?

I see no evidence to lead one to suppose that there is any doubt about the position in West Irian. In any case, the Secretary-General's representative is at present on the ground and has been there since August 1968. If there were any doubts about the position or the good intentions of the Indonesian Government in this matter, no doubt he would have reported to the Secretary-General before now.

Did not President Sukarno say that Indonesia would not allow the right of free choice to be exercised? What is the attitude of General Suharto? Is it not clear that these people are not Indonesians but Melanesians?

Nevertheless, preparations for the act of free choice are going ahead in conditions which are suitable for this territory. We have no involvement in, no commitment to, no responsibility for this territory, but we do stand ready to act on any reports which the Secretary-General makes on the preparations and the operation of the act.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has made to the communication from the Finnish Government on the subject of a European Security Conference.

As yet, none, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past the Foreign Secretary has suggested that events in Czechoslovakia would make it difficult for us to reply affirmatively to a proposal of this kind? Would he not agree that those events make it all the more necessary for a meeting of this kind to take place? Would not such a conference provide a perfect opportunity for our Government and others in the West to make clear the deep concern which we feel about the events in Czchoslovakia and, therefore, to give support to those in East Europe to feel a similar concern?

It would be generally agreed, I think, that there was a certain movement towards détente before the invasion of Czechoslovakia. It would be even more generally agreed that that act inhibited and put a stop to a very promising movement towards détente. However, despite our repeated and consistent condemnation of that act of international bad faith, we have, through N.A.T.O. and otherwise, shown our readiness to consider, indeed to welcome, a conference, given certain essential pre-conditions upon which I think everyone in the House would agree—some preparation, some likelihood that the main problems would be constructively examined, and also the participation of our Atlantic allies in the conference.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of some of the Questions that are being asked this afternoon, is it not a contempt of the House for the Foreign Secretary to absent himself? May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that only last Thursday, at Business Question Time, the Leader of the House informed hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman would be present today to make a statement on the Middle East? What is the position?

The position is that the right hon. Gentleman may criticise a Minister for his absence, but Mr. Speaker cannot compel a Minister to be here.

Would the Minister assure us that in the event of any negotiations taking place, all our N.A.T.O. allies, including North America, will be included?

Yes, Sir. That is a necessary pre-condition of our agreement to such a conference.

In preparing the answer which the Government make to this Finnish invitation, will the Minister bear in mind that this may be an opportunity not only for expressing what we feel about Czechoslovakia but also for endeavouring to set Europe and the world on a new course, which is all the more urgent in view of what happened in Czechoslovakia?

Certainly, and it was in that spirit that we welcomed the Finnish initiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in negotiating compensation terms for British assets seized in Indonesia: and if he will make a statement.

In April the Indonesian Government reaffirmed their intention to give compensation to the owners of foreign enterprises who do not wish to take repossession.

For how long have these negotiations been proceeding? What plans have the Government for believing that compensation will eventually be given and be satisfactory?

The Indonesian Government's first concern was to reach agreement with those companies wishing to resume their operations in Indonesia. The agreements were concluded with most companies in that respect last year. The complexity of the issues and the desirability of reaching a settlement by agreement naturally militate against a hurried conclusion of the outstanding claims for compensation.

Would my hon. Friend confirm that these negotiations have been conducted with urgency and good will?

They are being conducted with good will and all possible urgency.

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

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

The situation in Gibraltar remains calm. Everyone is co-operating to ensure that the life of the comunity goes on with as little disturbance as possible. The people of Gibraltar are adapting themselves admirably and with characteristic resourcefulness to meet the new situation.

In view of the appalling restrictions which have been imposed, will Her Majesty's Government make a point of reminding the Spanish Government of the massive contribution which was made to Spain's economy by the 1¼ million British tourists who visited Spain last year? Will they also remind the Spanish Government that a policy of economic sanctions can never undermine the spirit of a proud and independent people?

All those points have been very strongly made to the Spanish Government on repeated occasions.

What immediate arrangements have been made to ensure the smooth functioning of the dockyard following the withdrawal of Spanish labour? What request, if any, has been made by the Gibraltar Government for help for the construction trade in respect of the hotel industry?

My hon. Friend's supplementary question about the dockyard should really be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I understand that there is most certainly no intention of closing the dockyard or of altering its present programme. The tourist industry is being developed as speedily as possible.

Is it not a fact that more than a year ago, in the face of mounting pressure from Spain, the then Commonwealth Secretary made a promise, on the soil of Gibraltar, that a survey of manpower requirements would be put in hand? Why was the report of that survey put in the hands of the Governor only a few days ago, after the Spaniards had closed the frontier and withdrawn Spanish labour?

As the hon. Gentleman said, the report of the Beeching Mission on Gibraltar's manpower requirements has now been presented to the Governor. As the Governor said last week, the withdrawal of the Spanish labour force adds increased urgency to the problem of the reorganisation and redeployment of Gibraltar's manpower. However, it will be some time, remembering that the report deals with complex manpower planning matters, before any statement on its recommendations can be made.

May I press the point, since the hon. Gentleman has completely evaded the issue? Is it not clear that in the face of pressure that was predictable this report should have been in the hands of the Gibraltarian authorities a considerable time ago? Why was not this report presented to the Governor until after the Spaniards had taken action which led to the withdrawal of Spanish labour?

That question should be directed to the Beeching Mission—[Interruption.]—which has only now produced its report. Contingency plans for possible eventualities have been in existence for a considerable time.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of Ministers are concerned with the affairs of Gibraltar? He referred to the Minister of Defence regarding the dockyard, and he will no doubt refer to the President of the Board of Trade in connection with flights to and from Gibraltar. Should not one Minister be co-ordinating the activities of the Government, to whom we could address our Questions, so that the Minister of Public Building and Works would not have been put in the position of going to Gibraltar two days before the frontier was closed and saying that the Spaniards would not withdraw their labour?

I should have thought that the varying responsibilities of Ministers were well understood.

Is the Minister aware that what the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said is absolutely right, that we need the Foreign Secretary here to answer these Questions? Is he also aware that what he has told the House so far amounts to absolutely nothing? How many men and women have been sent out to assist with the problems of Gibraltar?

As my right hon. Friend has said, we will sustain the Gibraltarians in any situation which faces them, and that pledge will be kept.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which were the provisions of the Security Council's resolution of 20th March which caused the British delegate to abstain.

We abstained because of our doubts about the legality of the General Assembly's action in purporting to terminate the mandate and assume direct responsibility for South-West Africa. Moreover, this resolution was designed to pave the way for comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which we consider would be neither practicable nor likely to lead to a solution of this problem.

Whatever legalistic reasons may be found for our vote on that occasion, would not my right hon. Friend agree that in the eyes of the world it appears to have been a defence of South Africa's position in South-West Africa? Is it not highly undesirable, especially in view of our long-standing relations with other countries in Africa, that we should appear in this light, in common with only one other member of the United Nations?

Anybody who heard, or has since read, the detailed statement made by our representative at the United Nations, Lord Caradon, will not have any difficulty in understanding precisely where the United Kingdom stands on this very difficult matter. I am sure that in Africa and Asia, as well as in Europe and America, the position is fully understood following that statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has now been made in preparation for the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement.

I would refer my hon. Friend to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) on 30th January.—[Vol. 776, c. 1520–21]

Is it not the case that in 1964 the Labour Party's election manifesto said—and this was to be Government policy—that it was proposed to renegotiate the Nassau Agreement? As five years have elapsed, will my hon. Friend now at least undertake that the proposal will be made?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 30th June, our intention, at the appropriate time, is to carry through the renegotiation. The President of the United States was so informed by my right hon. Friend in 1967. The timing of the renegotiation depends on various matters—for example, the state of the discussion in N.A.T.O. on nuclear matters, and other factors that would be conditioned by the circumstances of the time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is that sort of statement which makes everybody distrust the present Government?

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister explained to the House that what he meant by "renegotiation" was "denegotiation"? Has anything happened about de-negotiating the Nassau Agreement?

As I have indicated, when the right time comes and when conditions are appropriate, we intend to carry through this renegotiation.

Is not the position that before the 1964 General Election the Prime Minister rejected the Polaris submarine and that just before the next General Election he will be claiming it as his own?

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, and as a protest at the absence of the Foreign Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Order. Notice must be given in the conventional form.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks in London with Herr Strauss.

My right hon. Friend had the opportunity for a talk with Herr Strauss when he visited London last month and addressed the European Atlantic Group. Their talk was confidential.

Did not Herr Strauss advocate a separate European nuclear force? Is not that ultimate objective of West Germany—getting nuclear participation—an extremely dangerous one?

There have been fairly full reports of what Herr Strauss said at that meeting. It was, of course, a personal statement, not an official statement. I call the attention of the House to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about this recently. He has made our view perfectly clear that we are not in favour of anything which would be divisive of N.A.T.O., or indeed likely to disturb the procedure to the ratification of the non-proliferation treaty.

Is it not true that in his recent visit Herr Strauss indicated that British membership of the Common Market implied a very advanced degree of political integration in Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Foreign Secretary the widespread belief held in this country that neither sentiment nor interest requires that we should become a province of federal Europe?

I think we are well aware of the extent of the sentiment to which the hon. Member has referred and also that the proposals which Herr Strauss canvassed are very far removed indeed, in time as well as in character, from the application which we are making to join the European communities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a Times report indicated as plain as possible to those who read and understand it that one of the purposes of Herr Franz-Josef Strauss's visit to this country and his meeting with the Foreign Secretary was to discuss the implementation of an idea about a European nuclear pool in which West Germany would play its part? Would my right hon. Friend come clean about it, if he knows anything about it at all?

The position was made absolutely clear by the Prime Minister when he answered Questions on this specificpoint on 22nd May and 10th June. It is that we are not in favour of such a pool if it is in any way divisive of N.A.T.O. and if it in any way imperils the non-proliferation treaty proposals. I repeat that it would be most misleading to associate this kind of proposal with the kind of application we have made to join the European economic communities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if proposals for balanced, mutual forces reductions are among the subjects which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, following the Washington meeting declaration, decided should be dealt with as a priority for discussion with the Warsaw Treaty governments; if the Council now plans to make such proposals to the Warsaw Treaty governments; and whether it will accept the offer by Finland for joint East-West discussions to take place there.

As the House has already been informed, N.A.T.O. is pursuing studies on mutual and balanced force reductions and issues which might be suitable for East-West negotiation at the right time. As regards the offer by the Finnish Government, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard).

But that reply did not state why they have not answered the Finnish invitation. Why has there been this delay even in deciding which are the priority subjects? Did not the Finnish letter state that Russia was prepared to attend without conditions and without objection to the attendance of America?

The Finnish Ambassador called on 5th May. I should not therefore think it reasonable to suggest that there has been undue delay, especially as we informed him that we would consider in the spirit in which it was meant the offer of the Finnish Government to be hosts to such a conference and to the preparatory committee after we have consulted our allies. Since 5th May we have been doing this. Our allies will be replying in their own way as a result of consultations. I do not think that at this moment one could suggest that there has been considerable delay. On the question of the Russian proposal, if my hon. Friend is referring to the Warsaw Pact statement of 17th March, if he reads that again he will find embedded in it very serious pre-conditions which we could not possibly accept.

Can the Minister tell us whether the N.A.T.O. proposals for balanced reductions mean reductions in the total armed forces manpower of the various countries—that is to say, disarmament—or simply a withdrawal from a certain zone in Europe?

They mean reductions as well as withdrawal. I would not minimise the technical as well as the poltical difficulty of arranging in a favourable political atmosphere an operation of this kind. Nevertheless, despite the events in Czechoslovakia last year and the tone and preconditions of the Warsaw Pact statement, the N.A.T.O. Council has instructed its permanent representatives to work on precisely that kind of arrangement.

Order. I must remind the House that lengthy answers mean fewer questions.

What possible confidence can anyone place in an agreement made at such a conference?

I should say in true friendship that that is a counsel of despair.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the offset agreement with the Federal German Government on defence costs.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) on 13th May, we are now discussing future offset arrangements with the Federal Government. A round of talks at Ministerial level took place in London on 20th May, and there will be a further round in due course.—[Vol. 783, c. 195.]

Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the proposal that defence costs should be put into a blocked account and should not enter into the ordinary balance of payments? If so, can he comment on that?

I would not wish to comment on that or on any point now under negotiation. Progress has been made in the I.M.F. talks here in London, and I hope that a second round, probably to be held in Bonn, will about conclude the negotiations. On the question of a blocked account, I am sure the hon. Member would not expect me to comment.

Will my right hon. Friend resist any suggestions which would conceal from this House and the taxpayer the true costs of our military commitment in Germany?

I think the full facts of the costs, military and otherwise, are pretty well known to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now propose to the United Nations that the trust fund for South Africa should be extended to cover Southern Rhodesia.

A recommendation in the sense my hon. Friend proposes has already been made by the United Nations Economic and Social Council and will be considered at the 24th session of the United Nations General Assembly.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that our response will be positive, because the unfortunate trend towards the entrenchment of totalitarian and police state methods within Rhodesia means that the principles which led to the establishment of the original fund for South Africa now call for its extension to Southern Rhodesia?

Rhodesian students are already being assisted from the trust fund, which was notionally meant only for Southern Africa apart from Rhodesia. I cannot commit the Government at this time, but when this matter comes up it is likely that we, as probably the most generous contributor to this fund, will support the recommendations of the Economic and Social Council.

What is the present cost to the British taxpayer and how helpful does the Foreign Office think this contribution is to our strategic and economic interests in South Africa?

We contributed 40,000 dollars to the trust fund in 1967.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations he is making to the United Nations for the celebration of its 25th anniversary.

In current discussions in New York, we are urging that the anniversary should stimulate serious thought and study, nationally and internationally, about the organisation's rôle, in order to strengthen support for the principles and purposes of the Charter. We support a special high-level meeting at headquarters. We should also like to see youth participate fully in the activities of the Anniversary.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. It is most encouraging to find our representatives concerned with the future. Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the British Government will do everything possible to resist an unseeming orgy of self-congratulatory speeches by world statesmen?

That is exactly what we want to avoid. These celebrations should be practical and realistic—

And inexpensive.

—and as inexpensive as possible. It would be even more expensive in both money and lives not to have a United Nations to celebrate.

Is not one of the organs of the United States actively supporting General Franco in his claims on Gibraltar? Would it not be appropriate on the 25th anniversary of the United Nations if this exhibition of anti-British prejudice were to cease; and would it not be helpful to the image of the United Nations?

I entirely agree with any efforts to fight and prevent exhibitions of anti-British prejudice wherever they are shown.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has received from the West German Government on the subject of a nuclear pool in Europe.

None, Sir.

Does that mean that when Herr Franz-Josef Strauss was in this country paying a visit to the Foreign Secretary he was not representing the West German Government?

It means that we have not received any official proposals or representations on this subject from the Federal Government of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will protest to the Soviet Government against the restrictive measures against Jewish people in Russia who wish to emigrate to Israel.

We are fully aware of the deeply held feelings of many people in this country, in Parliament and outside, but do not consider that further representations at the present time would be helpful.

In view of the behaviour of the Soviet Union against a small minority of people in the Soviet Union who are suffering from a deprivation of rights which are conferred on other Russian nationals, would it not be a little incongruous and invidious that the Soviet Union should be represented at the four-Power conference and in a position to act as a judge in a solution of the Middle East problem?

I wholeheartedly subscribe to the first part of my right hon.

May I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his decision with regard to raising this matter further, particularly in view of the appeal which has just been published by the Action Group for the Defence of Civil Rights in the U.S.S.R., which is addressed to the United Nations Committee for Human Rights, and which is a courageous document and one which should certainly receive the Government's attention?

I have seen the document as presented in the Press; I agree that it is a significant and, I hope, a hopeful development among certain Russian nationals. I think that my hon. Friend, who has seen me many times on this very poignant issue, will agree that we have to consider whether formal representations by us to another Government would be counter-productive rather than productive to an alleviation of the treatment of these unfortunate people. We are doing everything we can informally. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister formally raised this matter in Moscow when he saw Mr. Kosygin.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East; and what progress has been made following the four-Power conference in respect of the invitations to the Arab States by Israel to meet them with a view to discussions taking place between them to arrive at a permanent peaceful settlement.

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

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

The situation in the Middle East continues to cause us concern. For this reason, we are taking an active part in the four-Power talks still going on in New York. We hope that the Four will before long be in a position to convey proposals or recommendations to Dr. Jarring.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that the only way of getting a permanent peaceful settlement is by direct negotiations between the Israelis and the Arabs, particularly in view of the experience we have already had when in two successful wars against aggression Israel agreed to terms which were immediately broken by the other side and when none of the powers which had encouraged Israel to accept terms took the slightest step?

As my right hon. Friend and I said on 24th March, direct talks between disputants would normally be what one would expect and although we still hope that at a certain date, sustained by the fact of the four-Power talks, such direct talks will be possible, I fear that they do not seem to be any nearer than they were.

As the Foreign Secretary frequently says that the survival of Israel is Britain's main policy in the Middle East, why does the Foreign Office approve a policy of selling Chieftain tanks to Israel's enemies while refusing to sell Chieftain tanks to Israel herself? Is not this just another example of the Government letting down their acknowledged friends?

It is not the practice to pronounced on individual transactions of this sort. However, it is understood on both sides of the House that we scrutinise very carefully and responsibly any application that is made to us from this area for arms, particularly with a view to assessing the impact of any decision for or against such an application on the political situation, the peace and the stability of the area.

Have the Government had any success in persuading Mrs. Golda Meir in the recent talks to allow Israel to adopt a more constructive and positive approach to the Four-Power talks?

The Prime Minister of Israel has already had useful talks with my right hon. Friends and expects to have another talk tomorrow.

In view of the widespread anxiety in the House on the question of apparent discrimination in the sale of tanks, will the right hon. Gentleman say why the Foreign Secretary is not here this afternoon and whether he will arrive before the end of Question Time?

My right hon. Friend has very carefully considered what was said in the House on this matter last week and understands the concern of very many hon. Members. However, he is not able to make a statement which would go beyond what I have said this afternoon—

Why not? Where is he?

—and it is not his intention to come down to the House this afternoon to make it. It is his considered judgment that he cannot make a statement on this matter, at least at this juncture.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You will recall that last Thursday the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and others raised through you, Sir, to the Leader of the House, the question of the Foreign Secretary's coming here at the earliest opportunity—which would have been today—to explain this matter. The Leader of the House, with his normal courtesy, said that he was sympathetic and would do what he could. Surely, it would have been appropriate if, instead of being foisted off with these meagre answers, the House had been told earlier at Question Time what the form was, whereas we are now told at 3.30 that the Foreign Secretary is not coming, and no reason has been given. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, through you, whether the Leader of the House himself will make a statement explaining the position? The House should be treated with courtesy.

May I ask the Minister this question, Mr. Speaker? Even if it is the traditional custom not to furnish information about the provision of arms to other countries, how does my right hon. Friend justify the Government's action vis-à-vis Libya of providing that country with Chieftain tanks, in spite of its declaration of war against Israel, and refusing to implement the undertaking with Israel to provide similar tanks? Is he aware that the Leader of the House last Thursday gave a definite undertaking that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would be here to make a statement on the subject? Why is he not here?

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. May I give notice that I shall seek the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9—

Order. There is no need at this moment for the hon. and learned Gentleman to give notice of his intention to make an application under Standing Order No. 9. He knows the appropriate moment to make that application.

In the circumstances, and in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, may we now have the information? How many tanks have been sent to Libya? Under what contract have they been sent to Libya? Is any part of the contract outstanding for further tanks to go to Libya? What is the total value of the contract with Libya? Was Israel notified of the contract with Libya? Why is there this manifest discrimination against Israel, our friends in the Middle East?

It has never been the practice to pronounce on details of such transactions by this Government or preceding Governments. It is the practice to scrutinise very carefully and with the utmost responsibility every application made by any country in the Middle East for arms from this country so that the decision, whether it be for or against an application, will not disturb or imperil further the peace and stability of the area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike Israel, Libya is not in breach of United Nations resolutions, has not annexed tens of thousands of square miles of other territory, and is not ruling over more than one million foreign subjects with an increasingly heavy hand?

Would the right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, wish to alter the words which he used when he said that it was not the Foreign Secretary's intention to come down to the House? This is Foreign Office Question day, and I think that those words were hardly acceptable to the House.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remark. If I phrased my answer so as to indicate that the Foreign Secretary was in any way less than very sensitive to the feeling of the House, I apologise at once. It was his considered judgment that he could not usefully make a statement today. This is a normal process of Ministerial decision. I need hardly say that the Foreign Secretary is a Parliamentarian who would be the last to be suspected of being discourteous or inconsiderate towards the feelings of the House.

My right hon. Friend is right when he says that it is not Government policy to give details of individual arms supplies, but does not he agree that from time to time in the recent past the Government have given precise reasons why they have abstained from supplying arms to certain countries, notably in the case of South Africa, and have clearly set out the principles? Could he not be a little more forthcoming and give the House some at least of the thoughts of the Foreign Office on the reasons for its refusal?

I cannot add to what I have said. It is an accepted convention, and an essential one, that we should not engage publicly in giving details of these transactions.

Will the Foreign Secretary stand robustly by British interests? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a British interest to supply equipment to Libya, an old and valued friend of Britain, and a very peaceful country?

We are in very good relations with Libya, as we are, indeed, with Israel. It is extremely difficult to deal with applications for arms from whatever quarter and so to decide for or against without one or other of the disputants in this difficult matter accusing us of being partisan. However, so far this country has maintained a reasonably balanced approach to the area.

When my right hon. Friend speaks of traditional practice, does he recall that between the wars it was the policy of all British Governments to secure the fullest possible publicity for the traffic in arms and that today the objections to secrecy in this matter are very strong? Even on his own showing, is it not the urgent duty of the Secretary of State to come and make a statement about the Libyan affair?

I shall convey the views and feelings of the House to my right hon. Friend, who, I know, will once more consider what has been said and see what he can do.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this kind of problem would be solved if Britain ceased to supply arms to other countries?

We have taken the lead in that matter. However, unless it is followed by the others concerned, one is in a worse case than previously. We stand ready at any time to participate in an effective all-in agreement to control, to register and, indeed, to cease the supply of arms to all countries in this area.

rose—

Order. Mr. Edward Taylor, Private Notice Question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It will be within your knowledge that, in answering that group of Questions, the Minister, no doubt inadvertently, answered my Question No. 39 regarding discussions with the Israeli Prime Minister, without taking the necessary courtesy of asking the permission of the House. As that Question was answered, Mr. Speaker, may I have opportunity, as is the normal custom, to put a supplementary question arising out of the answer to my Question?

That is a most ingenious request, but I cannot concede it.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not your usual custom, if a Question is answered within a group, and the hon. Member concerned rises in his place and other hon. Members are called, to give him an opportunity to ask a supplementary question? I cannot now postpone my Question. I cannot put a supplementary question. The Minister will not be here again for some weeks. This has now precluded me from the opportunity of putting my Question, postponing it, or putting a further Question down.

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman's second observation has more weight than his first one. He may put his supplementary question.

I am much obliged. Mr. Speaker May I ask the Minister whether, when he said that discussions had ensued with the Prime Minister of Israel and that further discussions would take place tomorrow, he will give a definite assurance that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will himself come to the House and make a statement on those discussions?

I can only convey to my right hon. Friend my hon. Friend's desire that he should do that. I cannot commit him to such a course.