asked the Minister for the Civil Service what recommendations have been received from the Plowden Committee in respect of the pay of senior civil servants; and what action he now proposes.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my statement in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Eddie Griffiths), on 11th July.—[Vol. 779, c. 351.]

As these people can barely be classified as lower paid and in view of the impossibility of measuring the productivity of the senior Civil Service, is not the decision of the right hon. Lady an indication that she recognises that the market rate is by far the most valuable indication for measuring the wages and salaries which these people should be earning?

What is clear is that the first stage of the increases is in line with the incomes policy. Those in the higher Civil Service last had an increase almost four years ago and the remaining stages of the increase fall to be considered in the context of the needs of incomes policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that until steps are taken to reduce the enormous differentials in the public and private sectors the public sector should enjoy at least equality and preferably better conditions than the private sector?

I think my hon. Friend has put his finger on the kernel of the matter. While we have competition in the public sector we cannot in terms of the high standards of our administrative Civil Service allow senior officials to become poor relations. But if my hon. Friend were to say to me that we should look at the relationships between pay of all kinds—both high and low pay—I would entirely agree with him.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further systematic progress-chasing he has done on the Fulton Committee Report.

Progress is continuous. The report "Developments on Fulton", to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew the attention of the House on 13th March recorded a number of decisions. Since then the Government have announced several more. Further announcements will be made as appropriate.—[Vol. 779, c. 351.]

In particular, has any decision been made on a section of the proposed Civil Service College in Scotland for which a number of Scottish Labour Members have been pressing?

I ask my hon. Friend to await the Answer to a further Question which I should be giving in a few minutes time.

What progress is being made with the study which I believe is being undertaken of Government activities which might fruitfully be hived off to separate agencies and taken out of Departments?

Hiving off is under study, but I am not in a position to make any clear statement about it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what exchange programmes exist between younger members of the Civil Service and their counterparts in other member countries of the European Free Trade Association; and to what extent Her Majesty's Government are encouraging such programmes.

Study visits by small groups or by individual civil servants are encouraged if the value seems likely to justify the cost. Apart from individual visits, 14 study visits to six of the member countries of the European Free Trade Association and two visits to E.F.T.A. Headquarters have been made in the last five years by groups of young civil servants attending courses at the Centre for Administrative Studies.

Does that mean that the Government have arranged similar exchanges with the countries of E.F.T.A. of which we are a member as they have with the countries of E.E.C. of which we are not a member?

My right hon. Friend will be aware of an Answer I gave a week or two ago about visits to E.E.C. countries. We have some parallel visits to E.F.T.A. countries, but the degree of each is a matter for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a statement on recent negotiations with industrial civil servants, including dockyard employees, concerning productivity and pay.

Negotiations are continuing on a pay claim for industrial civil servants. A meeting of the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments was held on 17th July, but agreement has not yet been reached. Discussions are also being held, on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council, with a view to introducing a productivity scheme for the Royal Dockyards.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that, whether it is justified or not, there is a widespread feeling, particularly amongst unskilled and semi-skilled workers in the dockyards, that the Government are dragging their feet on producing their side of the bargain to make a success of the proposed productivity agreement?

I am aware that there is an anxiety to reach a conclusion to these discussions as soon as possible. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of the Government dragging their feet. These are rather complex negotiations, and we hope that they will be concluded as early as possible.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the Government's policy of making savings in Civil Service manpower and costs; and to what extent the implementation of the Plowden Report on the pay of higher paid civil servants will affect this policy.

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, I would refer him to the Answer given to him by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 17th June. In answer to the second part, I see favourable rather than adverse effects.—[Vol. 785, c. 82.]

Can my right hon. Friend explain why on 10th July a Question was tabled and accepted but an Answer refused, although she arranged a sponsored Question for the 1lth for a written reply and gave a full answer? What was the idea? Can we have some explanation?

I am perfectly prepared to give my hon. Friend a full explanation. He will realise that these matters follow collective consideration and the timing of Questions and Answers has to relate to that.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made on the accommodation for the Civil Service College recommended in the Fulton Report.

As hon. Members will be aware, the Civil Service College will take over non-residential accommodation in London and the residential centre at Sunningdale Park at present used for central civil service training. We have now decided that the third centre needed by the College will be in Edinburgh, and it is hoped that accommodation in Atholl Crescent and some nearby property will be available for use by Autumn 1970, when the College is to be set up.

I am sure that this will prove to be an ideal centre and that the distance from Whitehall will be no real handicap, as others have found in travelling to different parts of the world. How will research be carried out, be- cause my right hon. Friend will recognise that it is an important part of any management training establishment? Will she maintain contacts through the centre with industry and government?

One very good reason for selecting Edinburgh was that, apart from its being the centre of the Civil Service in Scotland and its good communications, it also is an area where there are immense technical college and university facilities. Although the links have not been worked out in any detail yet, one would certainly hope that full use can be made of these facilities.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that her recognition of Edinburgh in this respect will be warmly welcomed in Scotland?

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further steps he proposes to take to end unnecessary secrecy.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the White Paper on Information and the Public Interest.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the publication of the White Paper caused some disappointment in that it did not go as far as the Fulton Committee hoped that it would? Is she aware further that the Fulton Committee, in saying that there was too much secrecy, had in mind the presence of Green Papers and the like and that what was really needed was a further step forward which unfortunately up to now has not been forthcoming?

I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in this matter. As the White Paper says, the Government do not intend to rest content at this point. We intend to carry development further along the lines suggested in the White Paper.

To put this matter into perspective, would it not be better if the Government had a little more secrecy regarding their own policy statements and made them in the House before giving them to newspapers?

What we are discussing on this Question is quite different. We are discussing how far the public can legitimately be involved in the implementation of Government decisions.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what examination he has conducted into the length of time administrative civil servants stay in one job.

As my hon. Friend will recall, evidence was submitted to the Fulton Committee about patterns of administrative class careers. The problem is to provide a balance of specialised knowledge with a reasonable breadth of experience. A survey of administrative work is being undertaken as a basis for decisions on the Fulton Committee's recommendations on administrative specialisation. The results should be available by the end of the year.

I am sure that the research carried out by my right hon. Friend will be very warmly welcomed, because one of the features of the administrative Civil Service has been the frequency with which these people have moved around and consequently been unable to acquire the specialised knowledge that is a necessary part, if only a part, of the work that they undertake.

I welcome my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I am sure that he is right and that this will be a most valuable survey. We shall await with interest the results of it towards the end of the year.

For the sake of continuity when the time comes, what special dispositions in the Civil Service are being made in readiness for possible negotiations to join the Common Market?

That does not arise on this Question. If we have the most efficient Civil Service, it will be able to deal with whatever contingencies are demanded of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the action of the Greek Government in dismissing the President of the Council of State for upholding the rule of law, he will now reconsider the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards continued Greek membership of the Council of Europe.

No, Sir. While we remain deeply concerned about the situation in Greece, our policy on the question of Greece and the Council of Europe remains as set out in my statement on 7th May.—[Vol. 783, c. 458–64]

Are there no common standards of legality entailed in membership of the Council of Europe? If so, what does the Greek Government have to do in order to fall below them?

I think that was made plain in my statement on 7th May, when we expressed very great concern about the situation in Greece and recognised that unless the Greek Government were in a position to conform to what is required of membership of the Council of Europe, it would not be possible for that membership to continue. We must proceed with a certain degree of prudence and patience.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the present vicious and authoritarian régime in Greece will not last for ever? Democracy will be returned. Will not the part which we are playing at the moment appear to be a little shabby?

I do not think that the House, when I made my statement on 7th May, took the view that our part was shabby. We made it quite clear in the Council of Europe that we believed that membership of the Council imposed certain obligations and that we hoped, whatever the evidence might be, that the Greek Government would be able to fulfil those obligations in time. This is a matter which will have to be considered at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate discussions at the United Nations with a view to the adoption of an international convention to reduce pollution of the ocean, and provide for compensation in respect of infringements, similar in nature to the convention of the Council of Europe relating to fresh waters.

The Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation, already administers an international convention on the prevention of oil pollution at sea. It is convening a conference in November to consider liability and compensation for oil pollution from ships, and is also considering the need for international agreements to prevent pollution of the sea by other agents from ships and equipment operating in the marine environment.

I warmly welcome that Answer. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in addition to averting a situation where the ocean may shortly contain more oil, detergent, radioactive matter and sewage than it does water, this will also be a useful exercise in international control?

The faster we can move to a convention to prevent pollution of the seas the better. This is one of the activities we have in consideration of the seabed in the United Nations and I believe that we are, perhaps slowly but nevertheless surely, moving in the right direction.

Is it not important that the matter should be left to I.M.C.O., which is making good progress, rather than crossing the wires by having other bodies examine it as well?

We believe that I.M.C.O. is the right organisation for this and that this kind of very complex and technical problem is best handled by a specialist agency in the United Nations rather than by the General Assembly or by a general body of that kind.

In any forthcoming legislation is there not a case for making a bias towards the responsibility of the individual skipper of a ship?

As I explained in my Answer, the questions of liability and compensation are to be discussed at this conference and I do not think I should anticipate what the results might be.

Whilst welcoming what the right hon. Gentleman has said about I.M.C.O., may I ask him whether he is aware of the growing anxiety in this country and elsewhere about pollution of the environment? Can he give any idea of what preparatory work is being done by the Government in connection with the proposed United Nations Conference on the problems of the Environment?

The control of the environment is a matter which is being taken us, as a result of the initiative of the American President, in N.A.T.O. In terms of our own immediate environment, we have concluded a reasonable arrangement for the North Sea, which comes into effect next month. I think we have got to move step by step in this process, and I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present position in Gibraltar consequent upon recent measures taken by the Spanish Government.

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

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) on 14th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 14.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the growing feeling in this country that there should be some positive reaction in aid of a very gallant people? Has he considered, for example, the imposition upon Spanish subjects working in this country of a Gibraltar tax which would be quite specifically given to the people of Gibraltar to aid them in their present very real difficulties?

We take into account the strong desire in this country that we should help the people of Gibraltar. We have taken measures to that end and I am glad to say that the recruitment, for example, of substitute labour is proceeding, that the current hotel bookings are satisfactory and that business is up about one-third on 1968 figures. I am not satisfied that measures simply of retaliation would help the people of Gibraltar or would serve any useful purpose.

Would my right hon. Friend accept that the firm statements which he has made in this House have given great encouragement to the Gibraltarians and to those of us who have the interests of Gibraltar at heart? Would he also consider the possibility, perhaps in the Recess, of himself making a visit to Gibraltar?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said and I shall consider this possibility

Will not the right hon. Gentleman give some further thought to methods of retaliation? Is it not clear that the Spanish Government will continue to behave as they are doing until something is done to them which hurts?

I have explained to the House on many occasions that in considering retaliation we have to ask what measures there are which would be likely to cause the Spanish Government to change their policy, which would positively help the Gibraltarians and which would do more injury to Spain than it would to Britain or Gibraltar. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that if we can find a method that fulfils these conditions we would take it, but I do not think it is in the interest either of this country or of Gibraltar to hit out merely for the sake of hitting out without regard to the results.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now considered the action of partially freezing remittances to Spain while the present blockade of Gibraltar lasts.

Yes, Sir. I have examined the hon. Member's suggestion. There are considerable legal and technical difficulties, but quite apart from these, I am not convinced that a measure of this kind, which would penalise ordinary Spanish people living in this country and with whom we have no quarrel, would influence the Spanish Government to change its policy towards Gibraltar.

But how else can we bring pressure on the Government of Spain? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there are many Spanish workers in this country earning a considerable amount of money, and that there are British residents in Spain, both of whom help the Spanish balance of payments? Would not he consider this matter again?

I have looked into this matter, but I am convinced that to take the action which the hon. Gentleman suggests would be of no assistance to Gibraltar, would not affect the policy of the Spanish Government and would be injurious to people who are in no way to blame for the present situation.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that a very good lead has been given voluntarily by some trade unions in advising their members not to holiday in Spain? Will he ask the Confederation of British Industry to invite its members to follow that lead?

Yes, I have expressed the hope before in the House, and I do so again, that before any British subject thinks in future of spending a holiday in Spain he will have some fellow feeling for our fellow citizens in Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Beeching report on Gibraltar will be published; and if he will make a statement on further British assistance to Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further help he is considering to offset the effect on Gibraltar of recent Spanish action.

On the question of assistance to Gibraltar, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told the House on 14th July. The report of the Beeching mission draws on confidential information and would not be suitable for publication in its present form.—[Vol. 787, c. 14.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling that Gibraltar is getting the kicks and Britain is only contributing money? Does he agree that what is needed, at least, is a long-term economic plan with British help designed to maintain and expand the economy of the Rock?

Yes, Sir; this has been in our minds for some time and we do not neglect it. But what I have said about the report of the Beeching mission is right.

Can the Foreign Secretary say what is the cost to the British economy and also the economy of Gibraltar of the Spanish blockade? Will he look into the possibility of reducing tourist air fares to Gibraltar? Does he not agree that it would be better to cut some of the Spanish remittances from this country rather than turn every cheek to the Spanish lash?

There were three parts to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. On the last, there is a later Question on the Paper. As regards the cost to the economy, I could not answer that without notice. I shall look into the question of reducing tourist air fares.

A minute or two ago, my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question about retaliation that it must be something which would help Gibraltar and help Britain without injuring Gibraltar. Would not a decrease in the number of flights between Britain and Spain and an increase in the number of flights between Britain and Gibraltar achieve just that end?

I have looked into that, but it is rather more complicated than my hon. Friend supposes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to recruit the services of Sir Humphrey Gibbs, after his retirement as Governor of Rhodesia, so that his experience will continue to be of use to Her Majesty's Government.

In announcing his resignation on 24th June, Sir Humphrey Gibbs said that he and Lady Gibbs intended to live as private citizens in Rhodesia and to do what they could to promote its future progress.

Does not my hon. Friend realise that it will be a shocking anomaly to mark Mr. Smith's rebellion by depriving this distinguished and experienced civil servant of giving service to the State and a great loss to Britain? Will my hon. Friend see that that loss is not inflicted on us?

We have greatly valued Sir Humphrey Gibbs' courageous stand in the cause of legality in Rhodesia. There is no question of our losing touch with him. He has indicated his wish to retire as a private citizen, but I am sure that his views on Rhodesian matters will always be listened to with respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to bring before the United Nations the facts concerning Mr. Smith's recent proposals as to the constitutional status of Rhodesia and the resulting consequences on the coloured population there with a view to taking international steps towards the protection of the present and future of the coloured population.

These matters were fully discussed at the United Nations last month in the Committee of 24 and in the Security Council. Our policy is to maintain economic and political pressures, with international co-operation, until wiser counsels prevail in Rhodesia in the interests of all who live there.

Does the Minister not realise that this was one of the purposes for which the United Nations was formed and that the coloured people are in a majority in Rhodesia? Will he take steps to see that justice is done to them?

Yes, Sir.

As the United Nations has shown itself unwilling or powerless to deal with real cases of oppression, genocide and slavery in Africa, is it not more appropriate that the United Nations should keep quiet about the question of Rhodesia?

I am aware of the hon. Member's views of the United Nations and his views on realities in Africa. I state clearly and firmly that I totally disagree with everything that he says.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether at the discussions on the future of Intelsat now taking place in Washington, the British representative will support proposals to bring Intelsat under United Nations auspices.

I am not aware of any such proposals.

Whatever the exact relationship that is established between Intelsat and the I.T.U. or any other body of the United Nations, does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is extremely important to ensure that the management of the system is taken out of the hands of a body which is virtually a national organisation and that the voting powers of the governing council of this organisation are made sufficiently equitable to ensure that the body can be seen to be a purely international body and not a national organisation?

I agree that Intelsat should be organised to allow the fullest participation of all members, and that is one of the substantial matters now under discussion in the negotiations which are going on. But I do not think there is any question that the international status of Intelsat should be changed. It is a successful commercial enterprise; its membership is open to all members of the United Nations and its agencies, and we hope that many other States will join the 68 existing members.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate the American Government and people on the superb achievement last night?

In relation to Intelsat, will the right hon. Gentleman say what proposals he has for putting this on a permanent basis?

We have already had some preliminary negotiations for the future of Intelsat and there is a preparatory committee, of which we are members, sitting at the present time. There is a further conference towards the end of the year which I hope will give the definitive agreement we want.

I should like to endorse very strongly what the right hon. Gentleman said about last night's achievement. I am sure that it is the wish of all parties in the House to extend to the American Government our warmest congratulations at the tremendous achievement of those men last night.

Hear, hear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose international supervision of the new elections now officially proposed in the Vietnam peace talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in his capacity as co-Chairman of the Geneva conference to arrange international supervision of the elections now officially proposed in the Vietnam peace talks.

International supervision of elections in Vietnam has already been proposed both by President Thieu and by President Nixon but has so far been rejected by the other side. I hope that their objections will be withdrawn.

Is it not a fact that one of the main points in dispute in the present Paris peace talks is under what Government or under what supervision elections in Vietnam should take place? Is not an obvious way to resolve this dispute to have the U.N. supervising the elections in South Vietnam?

Yes, I am bound to say that this seems to me an entirely reasonable proposal.

Is it not, however, a fact that the United Nations have shown a remarkable reluctance so far to become involved in this difficult problem? Is not the heart of the matter that there should be some internationally supervised security system that would prevent infiltration and police any ceasefire which may take place?

I think that is so. Indeed, I expressed views very similar to that a number of years ago. But it now rests, I think, very much with what I described as the other side to see if they are willing to accept a reasonable proposal.

Was not international supervision of the elections an essential part of the agreements of 1954, and have not all parties accepted those agreements?

I think all parties have accepted them in name. We have now reached a stage where it is important to see how many parties will accept them in fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Great Britain's application to join the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position about the United Kingdom's application to join the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his negotiations to secure British entry into the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave on 10th July to a Question by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes).—[Vol. 786, c. 303.]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people are pleased now that there seems to be a better chance of Britain entering the Common Market, and, equally, other people would prefer an Atlantic free trade area? Is it not the Government's duty to consider the pros and cons of both those alternatives and inform the British people on the important facts

It is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there now seem to be better prospects than at some time ago for the success of our application for entry into the European Economic Community. In order to enter the Economic Community, one has to negotiate an agreement in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Rome. In the course of that negotiation, we should have regard to British interests and we should endeavour to keep the House informed.

I listened with interest to what the Foreign Secretary said. Does he recall that Dr. Luns, the Foreign Secretary of Holland, who was over here last Monday, said that the British application would receive the backing of the Dutch Government only if there were a firm commitment by this Government to a federal Europe? Is the right hon. Gentleman, or is he not, giving such a firm commitment?

We commit ourselves in making the application to what is set out in the Treaty of Rome, and this was further spelled out in the recent Anglo-Italian declaration. The British Government stand on that.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say a word about the impressions he formed at last week's meeting of the Monnet action committee which he attended, and will be reaffirm that, in spite of the problems of agricultural policy and institutions, for the British Government to pursue their application to join the Common Market continues nevertheless to make good sense for this country?

I believe without any doubt that it is right for us to continue our application. As for the work of the Monnet committee, there is a later Question on the Order Paper.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister's replies last Thursday on the question of nuclear sharing were received with widespread approval on both sides of the House, and does he agree that those who think that we can ease our way into the Common Market by offering nuclear sharing with France or any other West European country are acting at once cynically and in breach of both the spirit and the letter of the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

That is another matter, and nothing I have said would give any support to the anxieties which my hon. Friend has expressed.

When we come nearer to the prospect of a negotiation, will the right hon. Gentleman see whether he can bring the statistics up to date regarding British entry? There have been many thrown around which have little basis in fact that I can see, and help in this respect from Her Majesty's Government at a later date would be valuable.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we should put information of this kind before the House as soon as it was meaningful. Some of the hypothetical speculations which have been indulged in have no relationship to reality.

How does my right hon. Friend reconcile his statement at the Monnet meeting in Brussels last week that he is in favour of supra-national government with the repeated statements by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he is not in favour of federalisation? How do we reconcile those statements?

My right hon. Friend will remember that in the Anglo-Italian declaration there was reference to a European Parliament and the method of election thereto. The reply I gave at the Monnet committee meeting was entirely in line with that declaration. The development of a fully federal Europe is a very different matter.

Whatever the other economic merits may be, is the Foreign Secretary aware that visitors from this country to Belgium and Holland are being implored by their friends to bring gifts of butter because they cannot afford to buy it there?

That seems to be another question.

In view of the perversion of the facts in both the economic and the agricultural spheres which there have been in recent months, would it not be as well for all concerned if a White Paper were issued at the earliest possible moment setting out the true facts and taking into account all the possibilities, including the considerable changes which would take place in our own agricultural set-up.

I must repeat what I said earlier. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear that, as soon as it is possible to make a meaningful communication on this matter, it will be made.

As the Prime Minister has twice said in the House that it is not the Government's policy to take this country into a federal State, why does my right hon. Friend make statements committing this country to a European Parliament, which plainly implies federation?

No, Sir; I advise my right hon. Friend to study again the terms of the Anglo-Italian declaration, with which the House is familiar and which, I think, is acceptable to the House.

On a point of order. I do not in any way question the sole prerogative which the Chair rightly has about whom it shall call to ask a supplementary question. However, do you not think it necessary, Mr. Speaker, to point out that, apart from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, supplementary questions were asked by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall), the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), which I make to be five on one side of the argument, while only two were called on the other side of the argument—the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett)?

In view of the expressed view of the House on the last occasion when this subject was debated and as HANSARD is read carefully on this issue by people in Europe, do you not think it right that it should be made clear that the ratio of five to two, even allowing for the fact that you have to protect minorities in the House, is grossly unrepresentative of the views of the country?

Further to that point of order. The hon. Member has referred to the divisions in the House and what he considers to be the ratio of pros and antis. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that you were absolutely right for two reasons? One is that there were two Questions on the Order Paper, so that if the two hon. Members asking those Questions are subtracted, the ratio is probably quite right, and that, according to the latest National Opinion Poll, about one-third of the people in the country think that Britain should go into the Common Market. You reflected that splendidly, Mr. Speaker; thank you.

Under the guise of points of order, the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), anxious to help Mr. Speaker, have continued the battle of the Common Market. It happens from time to time that when I call hon. Members to ask questions the amounts of support for different views are not mathematically the same. Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 41 were three Questions about the Common Market, two from one opinion and one from the other. I am glad that the hon. Member for Barons Court does not question Mr. Speaker's selection of hon. Members to ask supplementary questions.

Further to that point of order. As there are a large number of free-ranging Members—if I may call them that [Laughter.]—may I point out that I was very disappointed that my legitimate Question No. 51 was not called with Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 41? Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me why.

That is a matter which the hon. Lady must take up with her right hon. Friend. I cannot distinguish between the free-rangers and the batteries.

It happens from time to time in a round of Questions that some very important issue arises. I could let it run for the whole of Question Time. I have to balance the keenness of a number of hon. Members to ask supplementary questions on one Question with the keenness of those hon. Members who have had Questions down for a long time and who will be disappointed. I must disappoint someone every day.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the St. Vincent Constitutional Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implementation of the new Constitution of St. Vincent.

I refer the hon. Members to the White Paper laid before the House on 18th July, which contains the Final Report of the Conference.

Subject to the Legislative Council's approval of the outline of the revised Constitution given in the White Paper, St. Vincent will become an Associated State on 27th October, 1969.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some people question the wisdom of granting associated status before the holding of an election in the island? Will he tell the House why this was done and what consideration was given to it?

The commitment to St. Vincent to have associated Statehood was made as long ago as 1966 and has been held up only by local difficulties. There have been differences—which are not unknown—between the Government party and the Opposition about the date of the election and also about the numbers and boundaries of constituencies. This has been a difficulty which, we hope, has now been resolved by the decision of Her Majesty's Government, which has been accepted by the Government party in St. Vincent though not by the Opposition. The position is that the election will be held at the usual date, that is, some time before 1972, and at that election there will be 13 constituencies.

Mr. Braine.

The right hon. Gentleman has answered my Question, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it wise—I put this in a genuinely interrogative form, because I see the difficulties—to create a new associated State in view of the difficulties, revealed by Anguilla, in the existing status, which leaves Britain with residual responsibilities but no residual power? Is it not reinforcing failure to do this again?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but St. Vincent was committed to having statehood in 1966, and the particular difficulties which arose in Anguilla are unlikely to happen in St. Vincent. However, there is a widespread demand in St. Vincent for associated Statehood. As we promised that in 1966, we feel that it is right to do it now. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Shepherd visited the island and spent a considerable time testing all kinds of information. On his return, he reported very strongly that there was this desire, and we think it right to agree to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to reach a conclusion on the matter of appointing an Ombudsman for Hong Kong.

The recently devised City District Officer team, which is working most satisfactorily, is providing the general public in Hong Kong with an opportunity of making known to the authorities their views on the conduct of public affairs. Other arrangements also exist. Consideration is, however, being given in the Colony to the question of how complaints that may exist among the public may be more carefully and fully examined.

I thank my hon. Friend for that Answer. Would he not go the whole hog and agree that if an Ombudsman can find a useful function in Britain he could find a more useful function to perform in a part of the Commonwealth where there is no democracy whatsoever?

I am not sure that one can equate the two in this context. In Hong Kong, there is not an elected element in the legislature and this presents certain difficulties in the creation of an office of Ombudsman or a similar office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government in Hong Kong do a very good job, despite the number of Communists who can infiltrate that area from Communist China? Is he not also aware that the vast majority of the Hong Kong Chinese support the Government wholeheartedly?

I am aware that the Government of Hong Kong does a very good job and, equally, that there are some problems unresolved.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that it is wrong to equate the City District Officers scheme and an Ombudsman? The main difference is that an Ombudsman has certain, executive functions and can recommend certain courses of action. Whereas the City District Officers scheme—desirable and welcome though it is—is no more than an opportunity for people to complain to the Government?

Yes, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, in the absence of elected representatives, there is a problem of sifting complaints. This is why, in the meantime, what has been devised is, to my mind, the best that could be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many persons are now detained in Hong Kong under emergency provisions; and for what reason.

None, Sir.

None? Would my hon. Friend make some inquiry into the authenticity of that Answer? Is he aware that the number which I am given is not "none" but thousands? Would he look into that matter?

I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend that I do not stand up at this Box and give an Answer which I have not verified. The Answer is "None, Sir," in terms of persons who are now detained under emergency provisions.

When my hon. Friend uses the words "detained" and "detention", is he referring only to persons detained without trial? Is there not still in prison a large number of persons who were tried on charges arising out of the emergency?

That is certainly true. I answered the Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose that those members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation who are not members of the European Economic Community should meet regularly to discuss the scientific subjects discussed as a group by the members of the European Economic Community.

No, Sir.

Would the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this? Would he inquire into the success of the conversations between Ministers and officials on scientific subjects within the Six and see whether, at least until we are more closely associated with the Six, we could not have useful discussions with the other members of N.A.T.O., particularly in view of the scientific achievements of the last 24 hours?

We are, of course, looking forward to receiving an invitation to join with the Community in considering scientific and technological co-operation and there are already several organisations in Europe—O.E.C.D., the Economic Mission for Europe, the Council of Europe and, of course, N.A.T.O. —for this. What the hon. Gentleman proposes would be adding to a duplication which is already quite a problem in demands on personnel and so on. We certainly want the closest consultation, but also want to avoid machinery which will duplicate what already exists.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Governments following the manœuvres in Canada in which men of the First Battalion Royal Green Jackets in a mock African battle defended Wamali, a make-believe Black African State, against infiltration from a make-believe white-ruled country, Lagona; and what reply he has sent.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one does not have to be an expert in crossword puzzles to see that the name of the black African country here is an anagram of Malawi and that the name of the white-ruled country is an anagram of Angola? Is he in favour of this gratuitous insult to our oldest ally, Portugal, and to Malawi, a Commonwealth country in good relations with her? Does he not think it quite absurd to have this sort of exercise when, in Africa, the position is the reverse and it is the African States who are infiltrating and trying to subvert the white-ruled countries?

I can only tell the hon. Gentleman that, so far as I am aware, he is the only person who has expressed great concern about this matter. There have been no unfavourable reactions locally. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was not consulted about this imaginary situation. We have plenty of work dealing with real situations and would not have expected to be consulted. If the hon. Gentleman wants to find out how the Army draws up its training plans, he must inquire of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us who won?

I will make inquiries and inform my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what ways Her Majesty's Government seek to safeguard the people of colonial territories against future fundamental changes in their constitutions when negotiating independence terms.

The method is to entrench the constitution or the more fundamental parts of it, such as those relating to elections to the Legislature, the independence of the judiciary, and the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. The alteration of entrenched constitutional provisions cannot be effected by a simple Parliamentary majority.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some two-thirds of the ex-colonial territories in Africa have now amended very fundamentally the Constitutions which they were given on independence? Why did he throw over the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Rhodesia on the demand for double safeguards, when he does not demand even single safeguards of other countries?

We by no means threw away the possibility of a negotiated settlement with Rhodesia. We pursued the principles to which all parties in the House are committed.

Does this not prove that when a country gains independence, and thereby its freedom to rule itself, entrenched clauses or safeguards put in beforehand mean nothing and that this would have been the same with regard to Rhodesia?

I do not think that one can always draw that conclusion. When a country proceeds from dependent status to independence, it may, if its history and nature require it, be desirable to entrench clauses. There is no way, of course, of preventing the violent and illegal overthrow of those entrenched clauses. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is desirable, if the history and nature of the country require it, to provide for such clauses. In some cases it is not necessary. The United Kingdom and New Zealand, for example, have managed very well without a written constitution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now plans to meet the Foreign Minister of France, Monsieur Schumann.

I have no specific plans to do so, but I hope an opportunity will arise before long.

Regardless of the British application to join the Common Market, is it not important to improve relations with our neighbour and old ally, France? Will the right hon. Gentleman take the earliest possible steps to meet his opposite number?

Yes. I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

As soon as the right hon. Gentleman does get the opportunity to meet M. Schumann, will he point out that the common agricultural policy is an extravagant absurdity for the British to contemplate and that we are not prepared to enter negotiations with a view to becoming the receiving ground for agricultural surpluses from continental Europe?

If I am able to have an opportunity to meet my French colleague, I must judge for myself what it will be best to say.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the agricultural position in France, as elsewhere in Europe, is likely to change in a period of time?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the disarmament discussions at Geneva relating to chemical and biological warfare.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions have been given to our representative in the United Nations Organisation arising from a report submitted to the Secretary General by 14 international experts on the dangers of chemical and biological weapons.

As I told the House on 10th July, I tabled on that day in the Eighteen-Nation Disarmament Committee at Geneva a draft Convention for the Prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare, with an associated draft Security Council Resolution; these documents have now been published as Command 4113. Her Majesty's Government believe that this is a significant step towards the complete elimination of all biological and chemical methods of warfare, which the United Nations Secretary-General has urged in his recent report I am hopeful that urgent consideration will now be given to our draft Convention and we shall naturally take all appropriate steps to seek international support for our proposals.—[Vol. 786, c. 302.]

Does not the recent accident involving the escape of nerve gas on Okinawa underline the urgency of the problem? I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's excellent work at Geneva, but why are harassing agents excluded from the bans he proposes?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind reference to me. We have not excluded harassing agents. We think that we would be more likely to make more rapid progress by dealing with the eliminating and banning of biological weapons first, and then we can turn to chemical weapons, of which harassing agents would be one of the more difficult problems. I have not in fact taken up the position, suggested by my hon. Friend.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any proposals to strengthen Article 3 of the draft Convention so that necessary action can be taken before rather than after any specific complaint is made?

I would be happy to look at that suggestion. It is extremely difficult to see how investigation could take place before a complaint is made because one of the problems in the past has been that there has been no investigation afterwards. It is impossible, because of the nature of chemical and biological weapons, to have an inspection before hand which would guarantee no possible illicit manufacture was taking place.

While welcoming the attention directed to this Convention, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has given careful thought to the fact that the Soviet Union is interpreting the present Geneva agreement in a different way from what the allies are doing? Has he called upon it to make a major contribution in this respect?

I have had discussions with representatives of the Soviet Union and I am assured that the matter is being closely studied in Moscow. I would not say that the Soviet Union is making a different interpretation from many countries. One of the reasons for the need for a new convention is uncertainty as to certain aspects of the existing Geneva protocol and the fact that it does not ban the manufacture and possession of the weapons, which is what I want to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the comparative direct financial contributions which are being made by the Governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom under existing youth exchange programmes under the Anglo-German agreement.

Her Majesty's Government at present provide £30,000 a year through the British Council which, I understand, is matched by an annual allocation of DM.300,000 from Federal German Government resources. Additional financial assistance is allowed by the Laender Governments on the German side and by local authorities and voluntary agencies in both countries but no figures are available.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bundestag has recently passed a resolution to spend £200,000 per annum on youth exchanges between Germany and the United Kingdom, provided Her Majesty's Government match that sum? When will the British Government agree to match it?

I am aware of the resolution but I think that I am right in thinking that no sum was mentioned. The resolution said that the Federal German Government should have talks with us about it. We shall, of course, be very happy to discuss it with the German Government with the objective of furthering youth exchanges. The British Government very much welcome exchanges not only with Germany but with other European countries as well. But I must also stress that we should not look at these exchanges as being only in the context of Government to Government financial subsidy. A tremendous number of young people cross the Channel each way under their own steam or supported or assisted by voluntary organisations and local authorities. I think that that is still perhaps the most important area for further exchanges.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's latest efforts to achieve a cease-fire in Nigeria and to assist relief work.

Our objective is an end to the fighting which would lead on to an agreed and durable peace and we are constantly seeking opportunities to help to bring this about. The Federal Government has repeatedly expressed its willingness to negotiate without pre-conditions. We will give any further help we can to obtain agreement on means of supplying relief and some progress has already been made.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us on both sides of the House are looking for a successful intensification of the Government's efforts during the Recess? In particular, will he make an opportunity in a United Nations context to try again for an international agreement to stop or at least reduce the flow of arms?

The fact that the recess is approaching certainly does not mean that Her Majesty's Government will relax their efforts in this direction. As I have explained to the House, an attempt to raise this in a United Nations context might encounter greater hostility from African States, which take the view very strongly that this is an internal matter. I am anxious to pursue this in whatever context is most likely to produce success. I believe that an African context is more likely to be successful than a United Nations one. If anything happened to make it right to alter that view, I would take account of the new situation.

In view of the fact that the O.A.U. has failed over the last two years to secure any success whatever either in respect of a cease-fire or of relief, will my right hon. Friend consider whether an initiative by the great powers which have permanent seats in the Security Council might not persuade the Assembly to take this matter up?

I have considered this repeatedly but I am bound to say that I think it is a matter for Colonel Ojukwu to ask himself seriously whether, in view of the general view of Africa towards this matter, he should not pay more respect to the initiatives which have been taken through the O.A.U. in Monrovia.

Ten days have elapsed since both sides of the House expressed the deepest concern about the relief situation in Nigeria. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the latest position is about sending in relief by air and by river? In particular, can he say whether any special support has been given to the strenuous representations made by the American Government about the Cross River route?

There has been progress on all this. The International Red Cross and the Nigerian Government are, I think, now in agreement on how to proceed in this matter. There are flights pro- ceeding by Joint Church Aid. But I must say that, until agreement can be reached on land routes, the larger part of the relief problem will remain unsolved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a loud outcry from world public opinion if the few relief planes going into Biafran territory are shot down by Federal forces? Will he make any comment about the fact that the United States has been asked to use its good offices to try to bring about a settlement of this terrible civil war?

Without further information, I could not comment on that second question. I think that everyone understands the difficulty which the Nigerian Government has with night flights—that they could be used as a cover for the supply of arms. It would be entirely possible for flights to go in by day. This is agreeable to the Nigerian Government and to the International Red Cross and I hope that it will be agreeable to Colonel Ojukwu.

As the war is far from diminishing—both sides are claiming new victories and more people are being killed—will the right hon. Gentleman see that when his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister meets the President of the United States on his visit to this country, he tries to get an international arms embargo off the ground? He must know that the American Press is extremely hostile to the attitude of the British Government.

I cannot give a pledge in advance as to the content of the conversations between my right hon. Friend and the President of the United States. I have explained to the House that we have already made efforts to try to secure an international agreement on arms supplies and we shall certainly not set aside any opportunity to renew them.

Will Her Majesty's Government ask Lagos to accept the Biafran proposal, which is backed by the United States Government and Joint Church Aid, for direct daylight flights from the three existing airports, subject to international supervision?

I do not think that my hon. Friend is quite correct about that. But the Nigerian Government has indicated its willingness to accept these to a limited extent and for a limited time. I must point out that the Nigerian Government has taken the unusual step of being willing for supplies of food, drugs, medicines and seeds to be flown from its territory into the blockaded territory. If Colonel Ojukwu has any regard for the people whom he represents, he should accept this offer.

On a point of order. On 13th November, there was a debate on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. I believe that I am right in saying that for many years that debate has been on the subject of immigration. Since 20th April, 1968, there have been eight debates on immigration and race relations.

Over the weekend, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that he could not debate immigration in the House of Commons because the House refused to debate the subject. I have information from the Library—

Order. I am waiting for the point of order. For the moment, the hon. Member has told me that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill was debated last November. When it is debated is no matter for Mr. Speaker. He is now proceeding to attack a right hon. Gentleman. It has nothing to do with Mr. Speaker.

My point of order is that since 20th April, last year, we have debated the subject eight times, including the main debate which I have mentioned. The country has been informed that the House of Commons is too cowardly to discuss immigration and race relations. It appears to be the case that we are not too cowardly and that we have debated the subject. For example, I have a cutting from HANSARD—

Order. I can deal with the alleged point of order. The hon. Gentleman is saying that a right hon. Gentleman made a statement in the country and was inaccurate. I have remarked from the Chair from time to time that hon. Members and right hon. Members are often inaccurate. It is not, however, a matter for the Chair.

rose

Sit down.

I certainly shall not sit down until directed to do so by Mr. Speaker.

The point I want to make is this: is it not an unjustified and unfair reflection on the House of Commons to say that we have been too cowardly to discuss a subject when, in fact, we have done so?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares the feeling of every hon. Member that this is a free country, where men may speak freely, even when they have opinions which the hon. Member does not like.

Further to that point of order. If hon. Members are not to call each other liars as under the rule of the House they are not, is it not incumbent upon Members to be truthful in their assertions in the country?