asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the refusal of the Ceylon Government to release the assets of British subjects who have left Ceylon on retirement to settle elsewhere; and what replies he has sent.

Representations are received from individuals from time to time. The Exchange Control Regulations imposed are of course a matter for the Ceylon Government, but in cases of real hardship the facts have been put to the Ceylon authorities by the British High Commission in Colombo. We are watching the position closely.

Will my hon. Friend tell us whether, in cases of real hardship, there has been any positive response from the Ceylon Government? Will my hon. Friend also undertake to draw the attention of the Ceylon Government that in a situation like this, where a number of people are denied access to their perfectly fairly earned life's savings, Ceylon can hardly expect to go on receiving British aid indefinitely?

When considering aid we should bear in mind Ceylon's difficult foreign exchange position. To cut aid would not improve its position and might well have an adverse effect on such transfers as Ceylon is at present able to authorise. We are continuing to watch the position very closely.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current negotiations on Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a further statement about the progress of negotiations regarding entry into the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the latest position about the Common Market negotiations.

There is nothing I can add at this stage to what I and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in the Debate on 20th and 21st January. I hope to make a further statement to the House following the Ministerial meeting in Brussels on 2nd February.—[Vol. 809, c. 1079–95 and 1317–34.]

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that he would be greatly helped in the negotiations if he could dissuade his right hon. Friends from provoking a series of confrontations in which they seem determined to arouse political passions? Surely a matter as important as Britain joining the European Economic Community needs to be considered against the calmest possible background and in the most deliberate way.

I think that this issue is of great importance to the country and to the rest of Western Europe. I agree that we should debate it calmly and reasonably. I hope that the debate last week helped to clear up quite a number of misunderstandings.

Is it not clear from the Press conference by President Pompidou last week that, by signing the Treaty of Rome, we do not commit ourselves to a federal system?

I think that that is perfectly clear to anyone who studies the situation objectively. We shall go forward gradually and harmoniously, developing institutions and harmonising our policies. There is no question of our joining the Community in its present state and becoming instantly committed to federalism.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that since the last White Paper the cost-of-living objection to joining the Market has lost a great deal of force? This may explain the welcome upturn in the opinion polls measuring support for joining the Market which we have seen. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman therefore publish a new estimate of the increased cost of living if we enter and also the increased standards of living?

I think that the situation has changed since the last White Paper was published. Incidentally, one factor of change relates to the cost of living. I believe that changes in public opinion will come when people realise the great objectives which are at stake and put them in the right perspective. Certainly experience in the Community is that standards of living have risen faster than they would otherwise have done.

Following from that question, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the Prime Minister's speech in May in Paris when he said that it would be wrong to go into the Common Market without the wholehearted support of the British Parliament and the British people? While we understand how we can arrive at the answer of the British Parliament, may I ask what consultative machinery the Government will set up to find out whether they have in fact got the wholehearted support of the British people before agreeing to go in?

It is important that we should await the outcome of the negotiations before attempting to make any final decision. It is also important, in putting across the case to the British people, that everyone in this House should take care to see that they tell them the facts.

Bearing in mind the harm which will be done to the Western Alliance if the negotiations fail completely and also the considerable harm which has already been done to the Commonwealth by the Government, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will persist in trying to reduce the negotiating gap between the two parties?

I shall certainly do my best. I have always shared the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that there is not one political or economic problem which we face today which would not be more difficult to solve outside than inside the Community.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that over the weekend reports appeared that the Prime Minister is himself to lead a campaign in the country to popularise the Common Market? Will it not be appropriate to inform Members of Parliament first exactly what are the desiderata, and bring the last White Paper on the economic measures fully up to date so that I can talk to my constituents factually and intelligently?

I am sure that I can tell my hon. Friend that all his right hon. and hon. Frends will endeavour to assist him in that objective. I do not think that it would be helpful to produce a White Paper at this stage. I think that if the hon. Gentleman——

Hon. Friend, please.

I beg my hon. Friend's pardon. If my hon. Friend reads last week's debate he will find quite a lot of helpful information.

As the Minister knows, this information is very important. There is one important item missing from the information which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave us during the last debate and during his last statement. Will he tell us now what, in his estimate, will be the size of the annual contribution which Britain will make to the Community's budget after the transitional period?

I gave the House a great many figures in my statement on 16th December, and I do not think that I can add to that. As I explained when winding up the debate last week, it is very difficult to be precise about figures, and while, in the course of the negotiations, there are some disputes between ourselves and the Commission, about the basis of the figures, how we build them up, and what considerations have been taken into account, a great deal depends on the assumptions that one makes about the size and shape of the budget during and at the end of the transitional period.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is necessary to have a further edition of the economic White Paper, having regard to events in the last year, particularly in the context of the financial regulations and the common agricultural policy? Will he also consider bringing out a revised and up-to-date opinion on the White Paper on the legal and constitutional implications, which is nearly four years old?

I shall certainly consider both the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend. I understand the anxiety of right hon. and hon. Members on this matter. It is a question of the right time at which to bring out a further document. I do not think that that time has yet come.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman is so rightly anxious that the facts should be given to the public, will he confirm now, which he did not do during the debate last week, that all his negotiations on the financial contribution concern merely the temporary arrangements and not the long-term position?

We have been concerned with the transitional period. We have made it clear that we accept the financial system and the direct income policy which is now being pursued.

Reverting to the anxieties of my two hon. Friends about the British people being informed, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the primary duty of assessing the opinion of the British people rests upon individual Members themselves?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. The Government have a responsibility in this matter, which they will endeavour to discharge. We shall do all that we can to help Members in helping us in that work.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to visit Australia and New Zealand for further discussions on the Common Market.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor I have any present plans to do so.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the astonishment in Australia that the paper on sugar which our negotiators put in was shown to the Australians only about three hours before it was put in? Second, does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that before we agree to go into the E.E.C. Britain must insist on gilt-edged safeguards in order to protect New Zealand's position?

As my hon. Friend knows, I went to Australia and New Zealand, and I cannot believe that the paper which we put in on sugar was greeted with absolute astonishment in Australia, because I made our position clear. We are responsible for our negotiating papers, and it would be wrong to try to identify Governments of the Commonwealth with them. I am in very close touch all the time with the representatives of the New Zealand and Australian Governments.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us were greatly encouraged recently when Sir Keith Holyoake said, in a most statesmanlike and far-sighted way, that he saw advantages in the long term for the whole Commonwealth in the success of the Brussels negotiations?

That is so, and in the debate I quoted both what the Prime Minister of New Zealand said and what was said by the Prime Minister of Singapore.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the concern felt in Australia about the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree with me that if the C.S.A. is cancelled without some sort of arrangement being made to take its place, it could put the International Sugar Agreement in jeopardy and we shall get back to the position in which the price of sugar fluctuates between £12 and £105 a ton, which obviously is a matter of great concern not only to Australia but to the rest of the sugar-growing countries of the Commonwealth?

There is a great deal of force in that, but no question arises of cancelling the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We made it clear that we could not change the basis upon which we were now operating until it came up for renegotiation in 1974. The Community's own arrangements also come up for renegotiation at about that time, and I think we understand that this is something that has to be looked at on a worldwide basis and in the context of the International Sugar Agreement as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be visiting Brussels in the near future.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Brussels in the near future, but I will be going there on 2nd February for a meeting of the negotiating conference.

When the Minister gets to Brussels, I hope that he will remind—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will he remind the bureaucrats in Brussels that almost half the Parliamentary Labour Party are against entry on the terms so far envisaged? Would he also remind them that many of us on this side would regard the signing of the Treaty of Rome as not being irrevocable when a Labour Government are returned?

For good or ill, the Parliamentary Labour Party is not quite as small as some of the estimates suggest. I will certainly convey the hon. Gentleman's views to anyone who may be concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now estimates that the negotiations on British membership of the European Economic Community will be completed and the terms made known to Parliament.

Every major subject in the negotiations has now been broached. While it is impossible to lay down a precise programme, I hope that the back of the negotiations will be broken by the middle of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend believe that this House will have an opportunity to express a firm view on, and I trust wholeheartedly to support, these negotiations before the Summer Recess?

We shall have to see what progress we make in the next few months, but clearly it is to everyone's advantage that the negotiations should proceed as rapidly as possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both the T.U.C. and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party have agreed to call special conferences so that the terms can be put to our members? May we have an undertaking that under no circumstances will the Government attempt to railroad a decision on this matter through in the way in which they are trying to railroad the Industrial Relations Bill through the House?

That matter could not possibly arise on this Question. People will make their own arrangements within their own organisations to consult as best they can. Certainly every effort should he made to ensure that the public understands the great issues that are at stake.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that he would have found it more helpful if the Leadership of the Opposition, who came out in favour of these negotiations in the debate last week, had refrained from forcing the withdrawal of the whole British delegation at the Council of Europe in Strasbourg?

It is perhaps not for me to comment on that. Everybody understands that it does not create a very good impression in Europe, whether one is for or against our entering the Community, if this sort of thing happens.

That comment was totally irresponsible. The right hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the back of the negotiations would be broken by the middle of the year. Does he agree that time is exceptionally short and that about 70 per cent. of the British people are very much concerned with the proposal to enter the Community? What steps are the Government taking, first to ensure that the British public are consulted on this great issue, and, secondly, to see that an expression of the will of the people is obtained by allowing a free vote in this House?

Only recently we had a two-day debate on this great issue. It is the first responsibility of the Government to keep the House informed, and that we have done and will continue to do, not only by way of debate but by making statements, which I hope to do as the negotiations progress. That, I believe, is the right way for us to proceed.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend be rather more explicit? He said that he hoped to have broken the back of the negotiations by midsummer, and presumably something will be presented to Parliament then, possibly by July. May we have an assurance that there will be several months in which the country can be consulted and in which this matter can be debated? Is he aware that this is vital if I am to honour the undertaking in our manifesto to consult the people? To enable me to consult my constituents, may I have an assurance that there will be no vote until November or the end of the year?

I hope that hon. Members are consulting their constituents as of this moment—[ Interruption. ]

On the terms.

Some people say that they want to consult on the principles involved, and that is reasonable. However, it is not possible to consult on the terms until we have them. I should like to get them as soon as possible, and when we have got them we can consider the position.

This is a matter on which different opinions are held on both sides of the House. Is it not extremely desirable, therefore, that the House and the country should make up their minds on the merits of the case? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that as long as the Government persist in dividing the nation on many issues on which previously the nation was united—[ Interruption. ]—they cannot expect any automatic support for their views on this type of issue; that is, if they fly in the face of established procedures in the House of Commons on other matters of equal importance?

I recall that when I sat on those benches and we were in Opposition, I had a great many disputes with the Government of the day. However, it did not prevent us, on matters affecting the future of the nation and its foreign policy, from supporting the then Government when we thought they were right.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the negotiations for the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community, he will oppose any proposals from the European Economic Community Council of Ministers for rewriting parts of the Treaty of Rome until Parliament has had an opportunity of debating and reaching a decision about such proposals.

Her Majesty's Government accept the Treaty of Rome and the decisions which have flowed from it. I am not aware of any proposal that parts of the Treaty should be rewritten. If the negotiations succeed and Parliament is invited to approve an Instrument of Accession to the Treaties of the Communities, all aspects of the matter will be the subject of full consideration and discussion in Parliament.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is deep disquiet—and there will continue to be disquiet as a result of his answer—because the Government are committing themselves to the concept of political unity in Western Europe on a matter about which this Parliament has made no decision and an issue on which the vast majority of the British people are completely opposed to what the Government are doing?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Certainly the anxieties of which he has spoken do not arise from my reply. There are undoubtedly anxieties—of course there are—but this matter has been debated fully in this Parliament and in the last Parliament and certain views have been expressed.

Despite the contentions of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), may I ask my right hon. Friend to agree that the proposition put out by those who are opposed to our entering the Community—that the nation is frightened at the thought of both Front Benches in this House being in agreement—is wrong because many people are delighted that for once both Front Benches are in accord on the course of action which the vast majority of people realise is in the long-term interests of this country?

It is certainly true that in some minds any agreement between the two Front Benches arouses a degree of anxiety. I hope and believe that that anxiety is not justified on this occasion.

As the right hon. Gentleman has constantly advised us to await the terms, is there not a heavier obligation on the Government to see that when the terms are known, the nation has time to consider them?

It is important—this came out in the debate last week—that the great general issues should be debated fully. That can and should be done now. As for the terms themselves, it is impossible to debate them until they are known.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that during the last General Election some of us found ourselves confronted by official Labour candidates who were anti-market? Further, is he aware that the candidate whom I have in mind did not do very well?

I am astonished that he did not do better in my hon. Friend's constituency. [ Laughter. ]

While noting with some interest and, indeed, fascination, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine), may I revert to the original Question and ask whether it is not the case that the only proposal for rewriting the Rome Treaty was one made by President Pompidou a couple of days ago, his proposal being to rewrite the Treaty so as to eliminate the supra-national elements to which it appears to commit its signatories?

May I, first of all, apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) for a reply which was somewhat rather badly expressed. I meant to say to him that I am not surprised that his opponent did not do well in that constituency, which is the exact opposite of the meaning which I fear I conveyed.

Answering the right hon Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), I think that what President Pompidou had to say was very much in line with many views which might be expressed in this House.

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of my right hon. and learned Friends reply on the point dealing with a vote after the terms are known. I wish to give notice that I shall seek to raise the question on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has now had with the United States Government in relation to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed this with the President of the United States in Washington on 17th December. President Nixon expressed full support for the United Kingdom's application for membership.

There have been signs in the last few years that feeling in the the United States for our membership is perhaps less enthusiastic than used to be the case. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the United States Government and United States public opinion is as wholeheartedly behind our application as it was in 1961?

I cannot answer for United States public opinion. Anxieties may be felt at certain levels, but we are always somewhat afraid of the impact of change at any level. But there is no doubt that the United States Administration appreciates, as successive British Governments have done, the enormous importance to the future of Western Europe and the Alliance that these negotiations for an enlarged Community should succeed.

Is the Minister aware that some of us are concerned at the implication of any consultation with the United States on this issue, because it seems to confirm our suspicions that the Government are not interested in the economic side of the E.E.C., although both parties fought at the election about possible membership of a European Economic Community. Is he aware that no party in this House has a mandate to enter a European economic and political community?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in his statement to the House on 2nd May, 1967, set out the political issues very clearly indeed.

Is it not the case that American concern about the enlargement of the Community relates to the economic and not to the political consequences; and that the political consequences present no problem whatever either between Britain and the United States or between the Community and the United States?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has put the matter very clearly. The anxieties are certainly about the economic aspects, and particularly the effect on traditional trading arrangements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has now had with the Foreign Ministers of the Six with reference to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.

I have now visited the Foreign Ministers of each of the countries of the Six except Italy. I have, however, seen Signor Moro, the Italian Foreign Minister in London, and plan to have talks with him again in Rome in the spring.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is considerable feeling in all parts of the House that perhaps the programme of talks relating to the negotiations is inadequate and that more discussions will be necessary if we are to reach the deadline which everyone has imposed?

That question arises out of the next Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now seek to arrange with the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community countries to hold more frequent meetings to question the negotiations for British membership.

I am satisfied that all the parties are making efforts to see that the negotiations are concluded as soon as possible. It has been agreed that negotiating meetings with the Communities at Ministerial level should take place on 2nd February, 16th March, 11th May and 22nd June. It has also been agreed that additional days may be made available, and the timetable could be speeded up if necessary.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is evidence of a growing political will on the part of the countries of the Six that these negotiations should succeed? Would he also state whether in his opinion it would be desirable to maintain this political momentum by having Ministerial meetings spaced as closely together as may be possible?

I certainly assume that there is the political will on the part of the Community that these negotiations will succeed: that is the basis on which we entered upon them. It is too early to say what further programme of meetings will be necessary. It is understood that we may need more meetings, but I should have thought, given the issues still remaining to be determined, that for the moment we had a reasonable programme.

But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of giving to the House these sophisticated answers about the Common Market, bear in mind one very important question, which is that neither the Government Party nor the Labour Party has ever received any mandate from the British people to sign the Treaty of Rome? How long can we in this House go on kidding ourselves that we can get further and further away from the public opinion of our constituents, who sent us here without giving us the power to accord with this movement, without the whole question being referred back to them at a further election—not by way of referendum, but by way of a general appeal to the electorate once more?

Every hon. Member has to put his own case to his own constituents, but I think that the position of the Conservative Party has been clear for a long time. What we have said is that we see great merit in principle in the enlargement of the Community but that we are committed only to negotiate: we have not promised to sign the Treaty of Rome no matter what the terms may be.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has received from the member Governments of the European Economic Community regarding proposals for economic and monetary union within the European Economic Community.

None, Sir.

In view of the very interesting suggestions put forward in last week's debate by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that something on these lines offers a hope for the maintenance of the future ability of the country to operate effectively in influencing world economic policies, and that the policies in the Werner Report could make a powerful contribution towards strengthening the world monetary system?

Chancellors of the Exchequer on both sides have made these points, and they were made again in last week's debate by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Cheetham (Mr. Harold Lever) and by the right hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I believe, however, as I have indicated, that these matters do not arise directly from the negotiations, and that there is nothing in the Werner proposals in the first stage which need cause us any anxiety at all in regard to British interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in relation to the United Kingdom's application to join the European Communities, what consultations he has had with the non-applicant European Free Trade Association countries.

We are in regular contact with all our E.F.T.A. partners. Ministers of E.F.T.A. countries meet at regular intervals. The last Ministerial meeting was in November, 1970. There will be a further meeting in May this year.

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend will agree that the European Continental members of E.F.T.A. 'have benefited greatly from being members of this Association. Can he give an assurance that when Britain, Norway and Denmark join the Common Market, these other members of E.F.T.A. will not suffer irreparable damage to their economies?

As I tried to explain in the debate last week, one of the purposes of E.F.T.A. and of the Treaty of Stockholm was to end the economic division of Western Europe. We are closely in touch not only with our fellow applicants but also with the non-applicant countries of E.F.T.A. so as to ensure that all our interests are protected.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress up to the end of 1970 in the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I have nothing to add at this stage to the various statements I have already made to the House.

As many of the arguments of the opponents to Britain's entry into the Community are narrow-minded and negative, will my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues increase further their efforts to stress publicly the positive benefits of British membership, for the benefit of that majority of the public who have not yet made up their mind but are open to persuasion?

If I may say so, it is very important that one should make a distinction between those arguments against our joining the Community—which I believe to be totally ill-founded, but that is a matter for argument—and those legitimate anxieties which the public feel and which we have to satisfy in the course of the negotiations. There are real fears, and it is our duty to try to remove them and to explain the great long-term advantages, political and economic.

Is it not the case that although it is the duty of Members of Parliament to enlighten their constituents, they also ought to take some account of the enlightenment among their constituents, and that some of our constituents—this may apply to hon. Members opposite as well as to hon. Members on this side of the House—are sufficiently enlightened to know that the advantages of our entering the Common Market are less than the advantages of staying out?

I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman is expressing his own views as much as those of his constituents. These are great issues and it is right that they should be fully debated in this House and in the country. That is what is happening now.

As the British permanent representative to the Common Market talks has described the British Government's proposals for the British contribution to the European funds as being a fair, not to say generous, proposal, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be no possible increase in the burden on Britain should Britain ever join the Common Market, and that there is no question of our voting rights being part of the discussions as well?

All these are matters for discussion. As I have said, we have put forward figures and the Community have put forward figures. We have put forward arguments justifying our figures. That is what we shall discuss. I hope that at the end of the day a reasonable and fair bargain is struck which protects the balance of mutual advantage to the existing members and applicants—one which is fair to all. That is the object of the exercise. I cannot conceive of a situation in which we reached an agreement on the basis that we did not have our voting rights from the outset.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the negotiations for the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome, he will now seek to obtain amendment to those provisions of the common agricultural policy which would be harmful to Commonwealth producers, whether from price increases or from subsidised dumping.

We accept the treaties establishing the Communities and the decisions which have flowed from them including the Common Agricultural Policy, subject to a number of points we wish to see covered in the negotiations. These include certain aspects of our trade with the Commonwealth, notably New Zealand dairy produce and sugar from developing Commonwealth countries.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that even to a convinced Marketeer like myself—that is to say, one whose vision is not impaired by nostalgic myopia—it is unthinkable that we should ditch our new Zealand partners or sugar growers in other parts of the Commonwealth? Is it the case that unless we can amend this lunatic policy, we shall be compelled to prefer the produce of Continental inefficiency to cheaper supplies from elsewhere, and to acquiesce in the subsidised dumping of unnecessary Continental surpluses?

Comments can be made, and we should certainly wish to make them were we members of the Community, about the application of the policy. What we have said is that we accept the Common agricultural policy as it stands, subject to the major points and the minor points which arise in the negotiations. I do not think anybody dissents from my hon. Friend about the importance of New Zealand and sugar from the developing Commonwealth countries. We have other problems of the Commonwealth, as also of our traditional trading suppliers, which we are seeking to protect.

Does the Minister recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture told the House on Thursday that the Common Market had been trying to get rid and, indeed, had succeeded in getting rid of its enormous butter surplus by dumping butter throughout the world? Have our Government, on behalf of our Commonwealth partners, made any protest about this practice?

It has not been the subject of the negotiations. We appreciate that the question of butter, especially New Zealand butter, is of very great importance.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the question? Have the Government made any protest on the dumping of Common Market butter subsidised by the C.A.P.?

It has not been dumped in this country. Other countries are free to make what protests they like under their own legislation. The United States Government, I think, allow 170 tons of New Zealand butter into their country. If the Community tries to dump its butter into the United States, it is for the United States Government to make a protest if they wish to do so.

Without asking my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on the somewhat pejorative preable to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, may I ask him whether he agrees that the common agricultural policy is not covered by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which requires only a common agricultural policy, and that the details of this particular and unacceptable policy could be modified by simple agreement amongst the Six which would be in their own interests, and for which our Government ought to be pressing?

I think that my right hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right when he says that the common agricultural policy as such does not arise from the Treaty of Rome. It can be changed at any time. It can be changed very frequently in the future. What is impossible, if we are to have sensible negotiations, is to try to change that policy as part of the negotiations. We have to accept that the Community has reached a certain stage, and we have said that we will accept that and we will adapt to it in good faith.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a categorical assurance to the House that in the negotiations the interests of New Zealand and our other Commonwealth countries will be safeguarded? Will he assure us that the interests of New Zealand, which are vital to the economic prosperity of that country, will not be sacrificed in any way by Her Majesty's Government?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It makes it perfectly clear that we in this country attach very great importance to the negotiation of satisfactory arrangements for New Zealand.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with Ministers from Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and Malaysia during the course of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference on the subject of a continued British military presence in South-East Asia.

I naturally talked to some of the Ministers concerned about this matter. No detailed discussion was needed as good progress in working out Five-Power Defence arrangements had been made by senior officials at their meeting in Singapore in the week before the Commonwealth Conference. There will be a Ministerial meeting in London in the Spring.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is every prospect of these negotiations reaching a satisfactory settlement? As there is so much concentration at the moment on matters of disagreement, might it not be as well not to overlook this matter?

I agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on the supply of maritime arms to South Africa.

I would ask my hon. Friend to await the statement which will be made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow.

Does that reply mean that the Prime Minister will be making a definite statement on the supply of maritime arms, or merely on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? These matters have been under discussion for six months. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall get a firm statement as soon as possible?

We have said that when the question of the sale of arms to South Africa is decided a statement will be made to the House. Tomorrow the Prime Minister will be making a statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, a large part of which was taken up with discussions on this issue.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the British Government were to issue a statement, before the working party on the Indian Ocean got under way, that they would not announce a decision whether to sell arms to South Africa while that working party was conducting its task, that would be a tremendous fillip to the morale of the Commonwealth? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake this afternoon to consider making such a statement?

At the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore we made it clear that the decision will be taken at the time which the British Government think is right, and we are not fettered in any way.

Is not there at least a moral obligation on the Government to wait until this working party reports? Has the right hon. Gentleman seen reports in the Press this morning that there have been statements over the weekend in South Africa that they are not now interested in British arms? Does not that show the futility of alienating the Commonwealth in order to please a racialist regime?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman ought to believe all the statements that he reads.

May we have an assurance that from this moment onwards my right hon. Friend and his colleagues will always use the term "maritime arms", to make it quite clear what the true purpose of the arms would be—namely, the defence of the trade routes on which the prosperity and freedom of all African States depends?

Yes, Sir. Any arms that might be sold will be in the category of maritime arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will seek to raise at the Security Council, as a threat to world peace, the continued aggression by foreign-based and foreign-supported guerilla forces against Portuguese and other territories in Africa.

No, Sir. Her Majesty's Government deplore the use of force wherever it may occur, but are of the opinion that these guerilla activities cannot be said to constitute a threat to world peace.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Republic of Guinea provides at least eight operational bases for P.I.G.C. attacks on Portuguese Guinea? Is this not aggression under international law, and also contrary to the U.N. Charter and the Charter of the O.A.U.? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this double standard operating in favour of a dictatorship whose cruelty is now apparent to the whole world?

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to comment on what he says about bases of which we have no knowledge.

Would the hon. Gentleman also deplore the existence of the Portuguese racialist regimes in Africa, which do constitute a long-term threat to world peace, because they involve the suppression of one race by another?

I also have nothing to say to that. The question of the emancipation of colonial peoples is one for the colonial Power, and we must have regard to their sovereignty.

Although I agree entirely on the desirability of the emancipation of colonial peoples, would the Government seek to make some representations about the trials which have taken place recently in Guinea, the results of which many of us have been horrified to read in the Press this morning?

I am afraid that I have no information except what I, too, have read in the Press. I also think that it would probably be counter-productive for Her Majesty's Government to make representations, which could probably be better made by other African Governments to the Conarkry Government.

What is the attitude of the Government towards the report of the United Nations Committee set up for the specific purpose of looking into the invasions of Guinea, which concluded that they had certainly been supported by Portuguese armed forces?

We accepted the report of the investigating committee, but we abstained on the vote because the Resolutions went far beyond what we considered the facts in the report actually justified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present state of discussions in the North Atlantic Alliance on the level of United States forces in Europe.

No discussion is in progress in N.A.T.O. and, in view of President Nixon's welcome assurances, none is needed.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree, nevertheless, that whether or not Britain enters the Common Market it would also be desirable to maintain a presence of United States forces in Europe?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the proceedings and agreements reached at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with other Commonwealth Ministers during the course of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making on the Conference tomorrow.

Is not the Commonwealth still of value to itself, to the world and to this country? What steps are being taken to make it less formal and more confidential?

The Secretary-General of the Commonwealth was asked at the Conference in Singapore to study this matter of the procedure of the Commonwealth in future.

Would my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, not agree that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference remains a unique opportunity for a frank exchange of ideas and opinions, and that it would be most inadvisable for any member to decide, at this or any other stage, to leave it because of any possible difference of opinion?

Yes, Sir, that is true. Of course, there are all sorts of contacts, apart altogether from the Prime Minister's meetings. The Finance Ministers and the officials, for example, meet at least once a year, so there are many contacts which should be preserved and can be profitable in the Commonwealth context.

Will the Prime Minister be dealing fully and frankly with the question of Indian Ocean bases such as Diego Garcia?

Frankly, but how fully the hon. Gentleman will have to judge.

May we take it that the Prime Minister's statement tomorrow will not only give us full information as to the Conference recently held but will also deal, in as much detail as the rules of order will permit, with the procedures which he proposes for further conferences of this kind?

The Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences are, of course, called by a consensus, when the Prime Ministers decide that it is useful for them to meet. There are no laid-down procedures. What happens now is that the Secretary-General collects the views of Prime Ministers, and that procedure will continue. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Murton) was talking about rather different procedures, the conduct inside Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meetings in future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is now taking to encourage a resumption of the Jarring talks.

Her Majesty's Government welcome the resumption of Dr. Jarring's talks with the representatives of the Governments of Israel, Jordan and the United Arab Republic. They hope that these talks will be marked by a determination on the part of all concerned to achieve a settlement in accordance with Security Council Resolution No. 242.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted the increasing international support for an idea first put forward in this House and supported on both sides—namely, that it might help to induce the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied territories, and thus make a settlement possible, if they knew that the French and British were willing to participate in an international security force on their frontiers? May we ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is in line with his thinking, and whether he is pressing it?

The question of possible guarantees is being very carefully studied by Dr. Jarring and the four Powers in New York. Certainly, various forms of guarantees, either by the four Powers or by other Powers concerned, are being considered. It would not be wise at the moment, I think, to say exactly what we have in mind, because a solution cannot be dictated either to Israel or to the Arab countries.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most positive steps which we could take in this very delicate matter of ensuring the continuation of these talks after 5th February is to use our natural relationship with the United States, our friends and allies, to see that they use their influence with the Israelis to see that the talks continue?

Yes, Sir, I think that the United States has done that, and the talks are continuing. I think that it is a matter—the right hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) was asking me about this—of how one can give guarantees which will help Israel to fulfil that part of the Resolution dealing with withdrawal from occupied territories.

For the record, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that we on this side warmly support the efforts to secure a further series of Jarring talks, that Dr. Jarring is highly respected by both sides, that we have the fullest confidence in him and, further, that we concur in the view which the Foreign Secretary has just advanced, that one should not, at this stage, lay down any details with regard to the form of any possible guarantee which may eventuate from these talks?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are still detained in China; and whether he has had any recent communications from the Chinese authorities about them.

There are four British subjects believed to be detained in China, all for some three years. They are Mrs. Gladys Yang, Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Shapiro and Mr. Crook. Mrs. Yang is married to a Chinese citizen; the remaining three previously worked for the Chinese Government and have lived in China for many years. We are not certain that any of them wish to leave China. The Chinese authorities have provided us with no information about them, despite repeated representations. The most recent representation was on 23rd December, 1970.

While naturally welcoming the release of Mr. Johnson, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that there cannot be any real improvement in relations with China until it becomes routine for the Chinese Government to provide us with information about all British subjects who are missing and until they will give us consular access to those who are detained? Is he aware that this is as true for Hong Kong subjects as it is for United Kingdom subjects?

We are naturally anxious that the Chinese Government should give us full information about detained people. Our relations with China have shown a marked improvement in the last year. During 1970 seven British subjects, none of whom worked for the Chinese Government, were released by the Chinese authorities. We have left the Chinese Government in no doubt about our wish for a further improvement.

Can the hon. Gentleman give any figures about the number of people who get into China via Hong Kong? Would it be unfair to suggest that it is courteous of the Chinese to keep some of these people when they succeed in getting in?

I am not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. Perhaps he is implying that people are crossing the border at Lo Wu in pursuance of their normal business. If he will table a Question on the subject, I will try to find out the figures for him.

Would my hon. Friend give an assurance that he will continue to press the Chinese authorities, because he knows that my constituent's sister, Mrs. Yang, has been the subject of a complete black-out of information for a very long time? Is he aware that this is causing almost intolerable distress to my constituent and her family, particularly as her mother recently died without having received any information about Mrs. Yang?

We will continue to press the Chinese authorities, but my hon. Friend should bear in mind that we are not sure whether Mrs. Yang is detained or whether she wishes to leave China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now arrange to pay the pensions of the locally enlisted servants of the Zanzibar Government whose pensions are in default and who were employed prior to independence.

At my request, the British High Commissioner in Dares Salaam has recently made fresh representations to the Tanzanian Government on this matter, and we await the outcome.

Surely my right hon. Friend realises that the Tanzanian Government have not the slightest intention of paying these pensions and that, at the same time, these wretched people are very short of money? Could not the Government make some interim arrangement for these people, if they think that there is a possibility of some final settlement?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have tried to settle this matter. If I shared his pessimism I would not have made the approach that I have made. I am now awaiting the outcome of that approach.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the few instances in which this type of case has arisen, Her Majesty's Government have paid the pensions and have made a claim afterwards?

There have been differences, particularly in the South Yemen where the pensions were first paid and then debarred.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on aid now being given to East Pakistan to help with the rehabilitation of those areas which suffered from the recent floods.

During his visit to Pakistan earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the British Government would contribute £2 million to the World Bank Reconstruction Programme for the coastal areas of East Pakistan. Because the extent of the disaster there was unprecedented, and called for wholly exceptional measures of relief and assistance, we had already provided £530,000 for disaster relief. We are also providing £500,000 for the purchase of wheat for East Pakistan.

While welcoming that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can tell the House to what extent he has been in touch with other aid partners of the World Bank, since the Pakistan Cabinet drew up their plans for the reconstruction of the Delta at the end of November, and will he say whether he is satisfied that the total flow of aid will be sufficient to cope with the tremendous problem?

There has been discussion with our partners in the World Bank, both on the immediate reconstruction programme and on the longer-term action programme which will stretch over the next few years.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that his answer will give great satisfaction to those of us who recognise, for historical and sentimental reasons, how much this country owes to the jute industry of East Bengal, and will he also accept that we are grateful to him for having contributed funds on this scale to help in this unparalleled disaster?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what consideration he is giving to our bilateral aid programme? Is he proposing to send a team from his Department to consider steps which can be taken under the bilateral programme? Will he also say whether he is completely satisfied with the present High Commission staffing in Pakistan on aid questions?

I will certainly look into the matters which the right hon. Lady mentions. As to the pledging for the next year, this will be done, as she will be well aware, within the next few months. We shall then see whether our present level of bilateral aid is adequate.

With permission, I shall now answer Question No. 95.

In October, 1970, the Transport Holding Company, which, in 1967, had purchased a half share in Skyways Coach Air Ltd. for £27,000 sought my permission to lend it £300,000.

As the Transport Holding Company had already lent the company £1,200,000 and was owed a further £160,000 by way of interest, I considered that the time had come to put a limit on the amount of public funds invested in such a high risk venture. I had in mind also the fact that the company had made an estimated loss after interest of £200,000 in 1970.

Accordingly, while I agreed to a loan of £100,000 to meet immediate liabilities, I refused consent for the larger amount.

Subsequently, in order to give the company further breathing space to find alternative finance, and having in mind the number of jobs at stake, I agreed that the Transport Holding Company should make available a further £50,000 to tide the company over until 20th January. I was influenced in this decision by the fact that many people had booked and paid for passages over Christmas.

Neither the Transport Holding Company nor Skyways was, however, able to secure any firm offer, and the Transport Holding Company decided, with my full agreement, that there was no justification for putting further money into the company.

The Transport Holding Company, has, therefore, appointed a receiver but has undertaken to make such payments to employees as would, in its opinion, be fair and reasonable in the light of their contracts of employment, to make refunds for unusable tickets, and to pay in full claims of the company's outstanding trade creditors up to 20th January.

I should, perhaps, add, in view of some suggestions of the number of people whose holiday arrangements have been affected, that the figure of 300,000 people represented hopes rather than bookings.

The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making a statement on this matter. Since he can, I understand, in respect of the Transport Holding Company give directives which he does not need to report to the House as he does in respect of other nationalised industries, will the right hon. Gentleman consider making a statement when he gives directions to the Transport Holding Company on this or other matters?

Can the right hon. Gentleman deny that the injection of a little more capital, as is suggested, would save this company, to the benefit of the employees and those who do business with it? Further, although I have sympathy with his desire to reduce the losses in this case, will he give an assurance that he will not sell Transport Holding Company assets which are profit-making?

I gladly undertake to keep the House informed on this matter. As regards the other point which the right hon. Gentleman makes, I have no idea when the call on public funds would cease, and this led me to my decision, which I reached with great reluctance, that the time had come to halt this process. I felt that the process should stop.

I accept the reasons which made him come to his conclusion, but does my right hon. Friend appreciate that his decision will lead to increased unemployment in the Folkestone and Hythe constituency? May we have an assurance that an effort will be made to keep the aerodrome in operation, thus helping to continue the employment of the people concerned?

My hon. Friend has brought his anxieties very much to my notice. I greatly regret that this misfortune should have fallen upon many of his constituents. I would hope that the airfield could continue to be used as an airfield, and I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will be able to help in finding alternative jobs for the people who are thus displaced.

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile his decision to approve the payment of creditors in full in this case while agreeing to a scheme in respect of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board under which small investors were to have 30 per cent. of their investment written off—in addition to which we are now told that there is to be a moratorium, which may mean their not getting anything at all?

The hon. Gentleman will be the first to realise that I am not answering questions about the Mersey this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] I shall look forward to doing so on Wednesday. The cases are in no way comparable. What one wanted to do here was to terminate Government liability in this matter as quickly and as decently as possible.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on calling a halt to the pouring of public funds down this particular open drain. As there are even larger open drains about, may be have an assurance that his example will be closely followed by the Government as a whole?

I am sure that my right hon. Friends will speak for themselves. For my part, if there are any open drains which I can stop, I shall be glad to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) asked, that, as regards this undertaking for which he is responsible, he will not sell off assets which are yielding a profit?

I am concerned only with the public interest. If I find that assets owned by the State have either become a source of loss or are not earning inything like what they ought to earn, I shall consider what action is appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make immediate representations to the Soviet Government as co-chairman of the Geneva Convention in view of events in Cambodia and seek to act as mediator between the opposing forces outside Phnom Penh.

Her Majesty's Government have already made abundantly clear on repeated occasions their willingness to take any action, either as Geneva co-chairman or in any other way, which might help end the war in Indo-China. Unfortunately, the Russian co-chairman has shown no willingness to agree to joint action.

Has the Russian co-chairman been approached within the last 72 hours? If we are not to take an initiative, who can help these unfortunate Khmer people? In the light of Senator Mansfield's call for an inquiry by the Senate owing to American forces going beyond what he calls the spirit of the ban on ground forces arranged by the Senate itself, could not the Foreign Office take the initiative?

We last raised the matter when Mr. Gromyko visited this country and had talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If we see any suitable opening, we shall, of course, be prepared to do so again.

Pending more hopeful developments in the matter, will Her Majesty's Government give all moral support to the United States Administration in supplying air support to Cambodia?