asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received from the Secretary General of the United Nations an invitation to submit views on review of the Charter, in accordance with General Assembly Resolution 2697 of the 25th Session; and what reply he has sent.

I have not yet received such an invitation.

When the right hon. Gentleman receives such an invitation, will he, in the course of his deliberations, study the speech of Mr. Warren Allmand in the Canadian Assembly last February? Would he consult non-governmental organisations which have an interest in making the voice of the people heard, and would he press the Leader of the House to ensure that we have an opportunity of debating the subject in good time?

I have not received the communication. I will take into account the speech which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. This might well be a subject for debate at some future time.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he received such an invitation it would be a splendid opportunity to show that Her Majesty's Government really mean business about improving the machinery of the United Nations, especially, perhaps, for peace-keeping, widening the responsibility of the United Nations, and the progressive handing-over by us, and others, of sovereignty to a really effective peace-keeping organisation?

I made some proposals along these lines to the United Nations last September. I think there is often less wrong with the Charter and more wrong with the member nations.

Is it not the case that the Soviet Union will refuse to consider a review of the Charter unless and until the People's Republic of China is a member?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will appoint a departmental committee of officials with responsibility for ensuring that domestic legislation proposed by the Government conforms with international human rights' obligations.

Our international obligations are, of course, always taken into account when proposals for legislation are being considered. Existing arrangements provide for inter-departmental consultation as and when required, and I see no need to alter them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Questions on this subject addressed to the Prime Minister are referred to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs? Is he happy with the responsibility for domestic legislation? Would he not be assisted by some such review body as proposed in the Private Member's Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin)?

I should have thought that the present arrangements were sufficiently flexible to enable the objects which the hon. Member has in mind to be carried out. If any difficulty arises, I shall bear in mind the suggestion, but at present I see no difficulties.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that existing arrangements will continue to include Ministerial arrangements to check domestic legislation against international obligation?

The normal practice in drafting legislation is for interdepartmental consultation to take place at official level, but if any particular problem arose, it would certainly be referred to Ministers.

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

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.

I have nothing to add at present to what I told the House on 4th February and in the debate on the 20th and 21st January.-[Vol. 810, c. 1936–7 Vol. 809, c. 1709–1219 and 1304–1412.]

I thank the Minister for that answer, as far as it goes. Would he now give urgent consideration to propagating more actively in the country the economic advantages of membership, and would he try to spell it out in much more detail than in the White Paper published by the previous Government?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do everything in our power to see that the public understand the great issues involved.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the speech of one of my right hon. Friends last week, the only way in which the Government can get Britain into the Community is by relying upon some support from this side of the House, where there is, perhaps, more support than some may have supposed? [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman is joking."] We shall see. The Minister should be very careful that he does not alienate their support. Does not he think that the Government may be forced to make up their mind about just how important getting into Europe is compared with the highly controversial domestic policies which they are following?

This is a matter which commands support on both sides of the House. There are hon. Members opposite who still adhere to the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in his statement of 2nd May, 1967. When in opposition we gave our support to that statement, and I am sure that in changed circumstances the present Opposition will also continue to support it.

In view of the. increasing public interest in and appreciation of the probable advantages of joining the Common Market, will my right hon. and learned Friend seriously consider making a Ministerial broadcast in the near future on the subject of his negotiations?

Quite a number of broadcasts are made from time to time both by me and by others. I hope that they will continue.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House about any major concession made so far by the the E.E.C. to the British point of view in these negotiations?

Quite a number have been made on a large number of matters, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he studies my statements. For example, we have reached very satisfactory arrangements on transitional periods, we have reached a very satisfactory arrangement for Hong Kong, and so it goes on.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have now taken place in Brussels regarding the introduction of a value-added tax upon entry into the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with Common Market Ministers or the Commission about value-added tax in the event of Great Britain joining the Common Market.

We have proposed to the Community a five-year transitional period for fiscal harmonisation. This would apply to the introduction of a value-added tax which we shall have to adopt if we join the Community.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that many of us are finding it extremely difficult to explain the Common Market case without knowing the level of value-added tax likely to be imposed? In the absence of any specific percentage, will it be all right to adopt the Wilberforce formula and say that it is 10·9 per cent. as calculated by the Government and 15 per cent. as calculated by the workers?

It would be very unwise to do that. On the value-added tax, we shall have up to 1978 to make arrangements. There is no harmonisation at present in the Community about the value-added tax. A great deal depends upon the rates to be levied.

Do not my right hon. and learned Friend, the Government, the Opposition and the Liberal Party agree that to surrender the freedom to arrange our own taxation is to make a significant surrender of our internal sovereignty?

All these are matters which will have to be considered in detail after we join. As I have said before, a great deal depends on the rates and the matters covered. The degree of harmonisation to be expected will be a matter for discussion between all the members of the Community after our entry.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House who supported British entry in the past are now extremely disturbed by the sort of statement that he has just made? In the circumstances, will he understand clearly that he can no longer rely upon those right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, except for a few, who supported entry in the past?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's position perfectly well.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants are at present engaged in promoting Great Britain's entry into the Common Market.

No precise figure can be given since the majority of civil servants concerned with Britain's entry into the European Communities are engaged in the formulation and execution of Her Majesty's Government's policies towards Europe as a whole.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of the more important emissaries engaged in pacifying the French was reported in the Guardian on Saturday as saying that we would be paying very much higher prices for our food from the first day following British entry? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with that statement by Mr. Soames?

That does not arise out of this Question in any way.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that he might help in the promotion of the case if he explained in detail what he means by the Government's "reservation of their position" with regard to inshore fisheries?

That does not arise from the number of civil servants engaged in these negotiations. I have made it clear that the Government have reserved their position on the fisheries regulations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to be able to quantify the economic advantages for Great Britain through entry into the Common Market.

Any attempt to quantify realistically the economic advantages of entry must depend upon the outcome of the negotiations. We hold to the view that our entry into the Community on reasonable terms would be in the long-term economic interests of this country.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if there are any economic advantages at the end of the negotiations they must be set out very clearly as a balance sheet, and that to fall back on the statement that in the end it must be an act of faith will only disclose the transparency of the case?

As far as one is able to make statistical assessments of the position in, say, 10 years' time, we will try to do so. There is always an element of judgment which must be exercised. As for the long-term advantages, I have often quoted the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) that if we get only a ½ per cent. increase in our gross national product over five years as a result of joining, that will be an advantage of £1,100 million a year.

When discussing the Common Market negotiations, the right hon. and learned Gentleman refers constantly to the transitional period. Is he yet in a position to give any estimate of what the British contribution is likely to be after the transitional period is over?

A great many figures have been given both in the White Paper put forward by the previous Government and by me. I gave an indication in my statement on 16th December, and we also discussed the matter in the debate on 20th and 21st January. A great deal will depend on the size and shape of the budget at that time.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what he said in the recent debate and repeated today about the consequences of an extra ½ per cent. on the growth rate? Does he mean that after five years from the date of entry the benefit will be running at the rate of an extra £1,100 million per annum, and will he go a little further and say that as the years go by the rate will accelerate after the five years have elapsed?

That may very well be the case. That is what we have been discussing in the general debates which have taken place. I believe that the long-term advantages are very great, as did the previous Government when they made the application.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, provided that the terms are right, it should be possible to quantify the long-term benefits more precisely than they have been so far? The long-term benefits arising from access to the larger market are likely to be substantial, as are the long-term benefits arising from an increase in the rate of investment which are likely to result from them. Cannot the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least make sure that some work is done in Whitehall to quantify those benefits and produce some analysis of the results, so that the British people have a better idea of the advantages than they have at the moment?

A great deal of work was done on this by the previous Government, and it has been continued by the present Government. The Confederation of British Industry has indicated the way in which it thinks industry will benefit in the longer term. One has to be careful about giving precise statistical estimates of what is likely to happen in, say, 10 years' time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made in the negotiations over British membership of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. But, of course, much remains to be done if we are to succeed in breaking the back of the negotiations by the summer, and I have made this clear to the Community.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the overwhelming majority of new hon. Members on this side of the House are entirely behind him in these negotiations? Is he also aware that I believe that the majority of hon. Members of the House taken as a whole do not share the somewhat sour sentiments to which we have to listen from the perpetual pessimists-the anti. Marketeers?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the statement which has just been made and set it to music?

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) was speaking entirely for himself? Many hon. Members are very much opposed to the present negotiations, and an even greater number are very much sitting on the fence and anxious about the way that the negotiations are going at present.

In face of all the unanswerable questions with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been struggling today and on many previous occasions, may I ask how long he will cherish these illusions? Far from breaking the back of these negotiations before the end of the summer, if he were-in the unlikely event-to succeed in the task on which he is now engaged, he would break the backs and hearts of the British people.

I do not for a moment accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. He speaks for himself in these matters. I think that the House and the country would be well advised on many of these matters to await the outcome of some of the detailed discussions which are now going on.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the official translation into English of the European Economic Community draft directive on harmonisation of company law to be ready; and if he will make a statement.

The first European Economic Community directive on the harmonisation of company law issued on 19th March, 1968, has been translated unofficially and copies have been placed in the Library of the House. Two further European Economic Community directives on company law are in a draft stage and the draft Statute of the European Company is under consideration by the Council of Ministers. At this stage unofficial translation of the latter only is envisaged.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some hon. Members have received representations from responsible bodies which are concerned because they cannot get texts of these draft directives? For a lot of them, the question of what is likely to happen—we understand that it is a draft directive—in matters of this kind is far more important in determining their attitude to going into the E.E.C. than questions about transitional arrangements?

I shall certainly bear that point in mind. I can see the force of that observation at this stage. Hitherto, we have been accustomed only to providing the unofficial translations after directives have been made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish the full list of questions presented to the United Kingdom by the European Economic Community with respect to the United Kingdom's economic prospects and the future rôle of sterling, together with the answers he is giving.

No. Sir. These matters are confidential.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that an extraordinary list of them, confidential or not. has appeared in the serious Press in this country, and that most of them appear to be highly impertinent in nature? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House, if he will not give us the list of questions, that he will either give the questioners a very dusty answer or start asking them in turn what, for example, they think will be the effect on the French franc of a renewal of the events of May, 1968, or on the Italian lira if there is a military coup d'etat in that country?

Many questions will arise for discussion in one way or another.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he has decided in the negotiations with the European Economic Community not to seek safeguards for the primary produce of Commonwealth countries other than New Zealand and the sugar-producing and developing countries.

The arrangements for Commonwealth countries have been a central and important issue in the negotiations with the Community. We have reached provisional agreement on arrangements to safeguard the interests of Commonwealth countries in Africa, the Asian Commonwealth and the dependent territories.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend say why he has apparently asked for no concessions whatever for the primary produce of Australia—or, for that matter, Canada or South Africa—a question that is vital to those three countries? Will he reconsider this matter?

We very much appreciate the concern expressed about developed Commonwealth countries and their position. I have been to Australia, and hope soon to go to Canada—and I hope to be able to convince the Governments there that their position will be safeguarded by the transitional arrangements, which will last through to 1978.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that he has not even asked for any lasting safeguards for the countries mentioned by the hon. Member for Wembley, South (Sir R. Russell)?

The developed countries of the Commonwealth are involved in many trading arrangements. I do not think that between now and 1978 any problems will arise which, within the context of these negotiations, cannot he dealt with by transitional arrangements.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the best solutions of this problem might be associated status for those Commonwealth countries who wish to have it?

There would be great difficulty in trying to seek associated status for developed independent Commonwealth countries. If one of them wished to seek it, it could do so directly, and the British Government would give it every help. I do not think that the question has arisen in practice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has agreed the proportion of voting rights the United Kingdom would be granted in the event of entry into the European Economic Community, and whether it would operate concurrently with entry.

The negotiations with the European Economic Community are directed towards securing full membership, including full voting rights to operate concurrently with entry, on terms acceptable to this country.

Is it not important that the Minister should negotiate to secure that the suggestion of the Prime Minister 10 days ago, that fresh institutions should be installed in place of the present ones, should be obtained by qualified majority, rather than by unanimous voting, as under the Treaty of Rome?

Unanimous voting, of course, applies only where it is expressly provided for in the Treaty of Rome or has been otherwise expressly agreed. But, whatever happens, and whatever institutions there are, we would expect to have our full voting rights.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman make clear two points—first, whether or not the Six have accepted the fact that we would exercise full voting power from the day on which we signed the Rome Treaty, if we were to sign it; and, second, whether, in his view, the voting machinery of the Rome Treaty was superseded by the agreement, or disagreement, between the French and the rest of the Six in 1965? Or does he consider the voting provisions of the Rome Treaty to be still in force?

Article 148 of the Treaty of Rome, which is the basic article governing voting, is, clearly, still in force. As for the Luxembourg Agreement, or disagreement, this has been subject to a number of interpretations. In practice. of course, what has happened is that where any country considers that its vital national interests are affected it has, in effect, to reserve the right to disagree.

On my first question, did the Six agree to the British demand that there should be full voting rights from the moment of our entry, if we were to enter?

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. There has been nothing but provisional agreement so far, so I cannot say that there has been a specific agreement on this point. Certainly, it has not been raised in negotiations, and I take it for granted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what special arrangements he has secured in the current negotiations with the European Econimic Community for banana imports from Jamaica and the Windward Islands.

The nature of the arrangements for entry into the Communities of bananas from Caribbean sources will depend upon the availability of the alternatives in the Community's 1963 Declaration of Intent and which of those alternatives the countries concerned opt for.

As all the other countries of the Community give strict licensing or export equota systems to their banana producers, would it not be highly discreditable if Britain gave less favourable arrangements to Jamacia and the Windward Islands?

I see the force of my right hon. Friend's question. I hope to be making a statement after Question Time about my visit to the Caribbean, and will be dealing with this. The answer on bananas turns really upon the offer which the Community is prepared to make on association or alternative arrangements. Thereafter, we would expect the banana producers in our associated States and elsewhere to be given treatment no less favourable than that which the members of the Community now afford to their traditional producers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will cause to be published an addendum to the White Paper of February, 1970, on the economic consequences of entry into the European Economic Community, showing the cost to the United Kingdom of the payments under the Financial Regulations in the post-transitional phase, assuming no amendment of the regulations or of the common agricultural policy.

No, Sir. It is impossible accurately to assess our contribution 10 years from now in view of the uncertainties about the levels of Community and world prices, the pattern of United Kingdom imports, the scale of our domestic production, and the size of the Community budget.

is the House to understand, then, from that reply that we would have a wholly unlimited liability in the event of access? In that case, would it not be as well to spell that out in some clear form by way of an addendum to the White Paper, as suggested here?

It must also be borne in mind that we shall have a wholly unlimited benefit as well. It would be premature at this stage to try to produce another set of detailed statistics. Clearly, there will come a point, if the negotiations reach a sufficiently successful conclusion for the terms to be presented to Parliament, for additional information to be provided so that we can give the House and the country the best guidance we can.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the vaguer he is in answering, the more he fans the flames of opposition to Britain's entry of the Common Market?

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in having, to some extent, to make a judgment on these matters, but it can only be done on the best information available and the best assessment which one can make of what may happen in 10 years' time. I am sure that it would not be helpful if I made up a set of figures just to please him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will define the scope of the negotiations relating to the entry to the European Economic Community, and ensure that the future scope is wide enough to include the possibility of amendment of the common agricultural policy and of the financial regulations.

Her Majesty's Government accept the common agricultural policy of the Community. We have also made it clear in the negotiations on the range of the United Kingdom contribution to the Community budget that we accept the financial system of the Community. Amendment of the common agricultural policy and of the financial regulations remain outside the scope of the present negotiations.

But does it not follow from that answer that the scope of the negotiations is far too narrow to achieve a result which, in the event, can possibly comply with the test prescribed by the Prime Minister in Paris in May last year, of securing the full-hearted approval of the British people?

No, Sir, I do not accept that. Nor did this House accept it when the matter was debated when the Leader of the Opposition made his statement on 2nd May, 1967.

In addition to the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), which I believe are very important, is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that the answers which he has given this afternoon on all these Common Market Questions are extraordinarily ambivalent and that those which are not clearly say that no decision will be taken until we are in the Common Market, and that he is advocating to the British people that they should buy a pig in a poke?

If the hon. Gentleman views these matters objectively, and studies the statements made from 2nd May, 1967, onwards, including the Labour Foreign Secretary's statement in Brussels, our own statements, my statements in the House and our debate on 20th and 21st January, he will realise that these matters are being fully ventilated and that the House and the country are being fully informed of the progress of the negotiations.

Arising out of the question of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), is it the Chancellor's view that if the common agricultural policy is adopted the share of British food consumption supplied by the domestic farmer will increase? If that is his view, can be give a few facts and figures to help substantiate this judgment?

What one expects if our negotiations are successful is that the standard of living of Western Europe, including our own, will rise considerably and that we shall all benefit, including our domestic producers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to discuss with the European Economic Council of Ministers the issue of free movement of labour, with particular reference to its effect on citizens of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth.

We accept the Community policy on free movement of labour, but expect to clarify with the Community before too long the type of problem suggested by the Question.

Is it not a fact that we have no real choice in this matter of acceptance of free movement of labour? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that it will mean that Commonwealth citizens will be discriminated against in the job market in this country, including Northern Ireland, while aliens from Europe are allowed in?

There are a number of questions which have caused concern and which we want to explore in some detail with the Community to ensure that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers do not arise.

What sort of effect will this free movement of labour have on Scotland?

I would expect it to be beneficial.

Have the Government accepted the three draft directives of 1969, which affect the free movement of doctors? If so, what effect does he think that will have on the National Health Service in that doctors from, say, Italy and this country will come into juxtaposition?

As the hon. Gentleman said, they are "draft directives". We are discussing their implications with the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of all matters forming part of the current negotiations with the European Economic Council of Ministers, which have not yet been agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community.

The main questions for negotiation were specified in the opening statement to the Communities in Luxembourg on 30th June by my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I have since indicated in my regular reports to the House the matters on which agreement has been reached.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that such a list would show a considerable num- ber of controversial issues still outstanding? If Her Majesty's Government propose to deal with them in the way in which they have dealt with controversial matters so far—that is. with capitulation and not negotiation—is there not a very poor look-out for the British economy?

Certainly a large number of questions, many of them important, remain to be settled. I do not accept the conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Minister for Overseas Development has been present, or proposes to be present, at any of the meetings in Brussels concerned with British negotiations to enter the Common Market.

No, Sir. But my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development keeps in close touch with the negotiations being conducted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and advises him on issues affecting the development of the Third World.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that among the many aspects on which the House will wish to be very fully informed regarding the negotiations for entry is the question of the probable effects on developing countries to which at the moment we are giving a good deal of aid, particularly those in Asia? We shall wish to have the fullest information about that, and will the hon. Gentleman guarantee that it will be made available to the House by the Chancellor of the Duchy?

My right hon. and learned Friend will have heard what the right hon. Lady has said. I assure her that we have very much in mind the status and future fortunes of countries which are at this stage of development and have in the past looked to us for help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of the attitude of the Tanzanian and Ugandan Govern. ments to their Indian minorities, he will ban the sale of arms and other aid to those countries.

No, Sir. I do not think that this action would be appropriate.

Are we to assume that a decision has been sensibly taken that no economic or arms sanctions will be imposed on African countries of whose policies we disapprove, and does that apply to all Africa?

Any decision taken to sell arms to any country is considered in the context of British interests and the security of the free world. The internal politics of countries do not come into it.

In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman regards the interests of the free world as a dominant factor, will he consult the views of the free world before taking any decision on the sale of arms to South Africa, especially in view of the fact that the United States Government are known to take a completely different view from that of the right hon. Gentleman about the nature of the threat in the Indian Ocean and the requirements necessary to meet it?

The right hon. Gentleman is known to take a different view now from that which he held a year ago. No doubt people can change their minds. However, it hardly lies in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to pass strictures on us. I spoke about the security of the free world. This is a legitimate matter to take into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to secure the ratification by the United Kingdom of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft.

Her Majesty's Government intend to ratify the Convention as soon as the necessary legislation has been enacted. A Bill to give effect to the Convention will be submitted to the House as soon as possible by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Will the Government display some urgency in this matter? Can the hon. Gentleman say what amendments to our domestic law are necessary, particularly that on extradition?

I am not in a position to give precise dates, but I hope that the necessary legislation will be passed during the present Session of Parliament. Each party to the Convention undertakes to make hijacking an offence subject to severe penalties. The Convention also contains provisions on jurisdiction, prosecution, and extradition, designed together to ensure that hijackers are brought to justice and thus provide an effective deterrent to hijacking.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will be make an exception in the cases of those seeking political asylum?

This matter is covered in the legislation which will be brought before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in 1971 from Arab League countries regarding the boycott of goods manufactured by British companies which trade with Israel.

None. Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the recent boycott imposed by the Mobil Shipping Company on ships carrying goods of Jewish or Israeli origin or carrying the Star of David is scandalous? Will he use his best endeavours to dissuade companies with commercial interests in this country from giving way to the kind of commercial blackmail which gives rise to boycotts of this nature?

I think that our policy on this matter is well known. We are, and always have been, opposed to the Arab boycott on Israel, and we are opposed to any measures which restrict the freedom of British firms to engage in foreign trade.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further approaches have been made to the Soviet Government regarding the trials of Jews, following the interview between Sir Denis Greenhill and the Soviet Ambassador concerning the sentences passed at the Leningrad trial.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he intends to make under Article 13 of the Declaration of Human Rights to press the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which is in breach of that Declaration, to permit Jewish or other individuals wishing to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of their own volition to do so freely; and whether he will make a statement.

On my instructions, Sir Denis Greenhill saw the Soviet Ambassador on this subject on 27th December. Since then no further approaches have been made. However. the Soviet Government are well aware of our views, and I myself mentioned our concern to Mr. Gromyko when he visited London last October.

While I welcome that answer, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the deep concern felt on both sides of the House regarding the continued plight of Jewish people in the Soviet Union? Will he, through his answer to this Question, send a message to the International Conference, which is being held in Brussels later this week, expressing not only the Government's concern but that of the British people on this issue?

Yes, Sir. It is true that there is very widespread concern, and I voice it here. This is a matter concerning the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, but we have made quite clear how much we think that the policies which they pursue damage the reputation of the Soviets in the world outside.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 9th February, 1882, a Question was put to the Prime Minister at the time about the persecution of Jews in Russia and he undertook to make representations to the Russian Government? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that to have to wait 89 years to achieve something is by no means satisfactory? Will he assure the House that we shall not have to wait a further 89 years and put further Questions down to the Foreign Secretary regarding the persecution of Jews in Russia?

My hon. Friend's quotation seems to suggest that the policy of the Russian Government does not change, and I am glad to say that in 89 years the policy of Her Majesty's Government has not changed either. [Interruption.]

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, though the Russians' treatment of their minorities, including their Jewish minorities, is plainly indefensible, it is not yet so openly racialist, nor has it caused such hardship and injustice, as the treatment of Palestinian Arabs by the Israelis, as is well shown? To establish this point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to study the reports of the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the United Nations and to resist these calls to apply double standards of morality on points of this kind?

I do not think that this point arises from the specific Question which I was asked. Persecution of Jews by anybody, or indeed persecution of all minorities, is abhorrent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I raised this matter at the Interparliamentary Conference at Lima and drew attention to the concern felt in this country on this matter, one of the Eastern European delegates suggested that that concern derived from false propaganda? Will my right hon. Friend, with his higher authority. confirm that this concern exists and derives from the facts as we know them?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is one matter on which Her Government's Opposition are totally at one with Her Majesty's Government? There are many grounds for concern at the persecution of Jews not only in the Soviet Union but in various East European countries.

indicated assent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further developments have transpired regarding Mr. and Mrs. Clutton-Brock of Cold Comfort Farm in Rhodesia, following correspondence concerning their detention by the Rhodesian régime sent him by the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

Mr. and Mrs. Clutton-Brock were not detained by the Rhodesian régime. Mr. Clutton-Brock was deported after being deprived of his Rhodesian citizenship, and is now in this country. Mrs. Clutton-Brock has decided to remain in Rhodesia for the time being.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the actions taken by the régime against the Clutton-Brocks were deplorable, and that Cold Comfort Farm was a practical demonstration of racial harmony? I know that he is not reeponsible for Press reports, but Press reports have recently appeared to the effect that some form of negotiation is taking place between Her Majesty's Government and the illegal regime. Can the Foreign Secretary enlighten the House on that point?

We should like to see a truly non-racial policy pursued in Rhodesia. If and when negotiations take place, that will be one of their purposes. I think that the experiment at Cold Comfort Farm was a successful experiment in multi-racialism.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman condemn the action of Rhodesia Government in depriving Mr. Clutton-Brock of his citizenship, on grounds never made clear either to him or to anyone else? Can he further say whether in the course of the negotiations now going on with Salisbury the attitude of the British Government has been made plain to the Rhodesian Government?

Negotiations have not begun. Prelimainary exchanges to see whether a basis for negotiation is possible have taken place. I cannot say whether negotiations will be possible.

Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whether the Government have a view on the expulsion of Mr. Clutton-Brock?

We think that Mr. Clutton-Brock's experiment on his farm was a good experiment in multiracial relations. Therefore, we would deplore that anybody should be deported for such reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the circumstances in which South African armed forces and police are stationed in Rhodesia in support of the illegal régime.

According to my information, there are no members of the South African armed forces stationed in Rhodesia. The South African Government are aware of our objections to the continued presence there of their police, and we shall continue to do what we can to secure their withdrawal.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the presence of South African police in support of the illegal régime adversely affects his chances of negotiating an acceptable settlement to the Rhodesian deadlock? Can he assure the House that any supply of arms to South Africa will be conditional on the withdrawal of all South African police from Rhodesia?

I do not know whether negotiations with Rhodesia would be adversely affected, but I know that I have made representations to the Foreign Minister of South Africa for the withdrawal of these police.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what reply he has received from the South African Government to the protest that he says he has made? Is it not extraordinary that he should be proposing to supply arms to a Government which are keeping police and armed men in British territory against the express will of the British Government?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the police were there when he was Defence Secretary in a Socialist Government. The South African Government did not make any response to the requests that the right hon. Gentleman no doubt made for the withdrawal of those police. I shall continue my efforts with the South African Foreign Minister to try to get the police withdrawn. If there were a settlement with Rhodesia I would hope that there would be no need for them.

Is it not a fact that the police are in Rhodesia to check incursions from another Commonwealth country—Zambia—and that assurances have been given that they will be withdrawn when the incursions cease? Should not Her Majesty's Government be bending their endeavours to check those incursions?

I do not know about checking incursions; we can try to reach a settlement with Rhodesia which will remove the cause of the incursions and, therefore, the need to have South African police in Rhodesia.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the distinction between armed police and armed Servicemen is a somewhat academic one? There is little difference between the two. Can the right hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of history, tell us of any occasion on which this country has supplied arms to a foreign Government whose nationals were actively supporting a rebellion against the Crown?

I do not think that I can give any such example. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to give an example. The fact is that we have limited power in this matter, and we shall continue to apply it to the South African Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the South African Government are meeting their legal obligations under the Simonstown Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I had asked our ambassador in Cape Town to make inquiries on this point, and I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information he received.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look back to the report of an answer given early last week which specifically avoided any mention of job classification, of equality in rates of pay and equality in pension rights—all three of which are the most significant aspects of apartheid, in terms of job employment? If we are to sell arms to South Africa we should ensure that that country abides by its obligations under the agreement.

I hope that the hon. Member will read the information that the ambassador has given me. It covers all those points. If he wants to come back at a later date on that question I shall be happy to answer. The South African Government are fulfilling the terms of the Simonstown Agreement.

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, is he aware that we shall read the ambassador's report with close attention? Is he further aware that since 1968 Simonstown has been declared as a white group area, as a result of which 400 coloured persons who have lived there for 200 years are being moved arbitrarily from the area, in direct contravention of one of the conditions of the Simonstown Agreement in 1955?

That is curious, because actually more Africans have moved into the base, and are receiving fair conditions, as laid down in the Simonstown Agreement. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will read the ambassador's account.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he has given to sportsmen or sponsoring organisations or other Government Departments in con- nection with sporting visits to South Africa.

It is for sporting bodies to reach their own decisions about sporting contacts with South Africa. Consultations between Departments in the Government are, of course, confidential.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Minister for Sport said that this was the responsibility of the Foreign Secretary? Is he aware that in regard to Scottish sea anglers the request was turned down by the Secretary of State for Scotland? Can he tell us where the buck finally stops? As a member of the M.C.C., would he, as Foreign Secretary, agree to the visit of a British cricket team to South Africa in present conditions?

Leaving the hypothetical questions out of it, the responsibility here is that of the Minister for Sport. If there is any change in policy, he will come to the House and say so.

As much of the hope of peaceful change in South Africa depends upon the young generation of Afrikaaners, are not sporting visits of this kind, with the many contacts that they give among young people, likely to be helpful?

My right hon. Friend knows that I have been one of the strongest advocates of contact as against boycott.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Soviet authorities in Berlin since 7th December, 1970, about delays imposed on road traffic passing through East Germany en route to Berlin from the West German Federal Republic; and if he will make a statement.

Since 7th December there have been three cases of harassment on the autobahn. On each occasion the Allies made joint protests to the Soviet Ambassador in Berlin, and on 3rd February we made an oral protest to the Soviet Ambassador in London.

Could my right hon. Friend urge the representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the current round of four-Power talks on the status of the City of Berlin to put pressure on the Soviet Union to curtail these acts of harassment, most of which have been perpetrated by the East German régime, because we would regard a curtailment of this harassment as evidence that the Soviet Union is genuinely interested in the relaxation of tension, not only in Berlin but in Eastern Europe as a whole?

Yes, Sir. These acts of harassment are, of course, against the rules agreed by the allies for the conduct of affairs in the city and the approaches to the city.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that these acts of harassment prove that the Russian Government have no intention of making any progress in East-West politics with the West German Government at present? Should not free access to West Berlin be given as a prerequisite to ratification taking place?

This is, of course, largely a matter for the Federal German Government. The German Chancellor has linked the two treaties together—that is, the treaties with Poland and the Soviet Union—and has said that he looks for progress on Berlin before they are ratified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on the outcome of discussions with the rulers and Governments in the Gulf about defence arrangements after 1971.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his discussions about future relations with the Gulf States.

Sir William Luce has only recently returned from his latest tour of consultations. His further report is being considered. I hope to be in a position to make a statement very shortly.

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that a statement will be made before the two-day debate takes place in this House on the Defence White Paper at the beginning of next week, because this is an area of crucial strategic importance from which Western Europe derives three-quarters of its oil?

Yes, Sir; in response to my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I will certainly try to do that. It is, however, important that we get this matter right; in other words, it is vital that we get the right decision made in relation to this area.

Whatever may be the future defence arrangements, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that Her Majesty's Government will continue to give full support to British commercial and trading activities in the Gulf area?

indicated assent.

While I strongly support what was said by the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) about the need for a statement to be made in the House before next week's defence debate, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that such a statement should also be made before the debate on the Defence White Paper takes place in another place?

Sir William Luce has looked into this problem with objectivity—he has not linked it to the policy of either the Socialist Government or the Conservative Government—and has recommended a policy, after consultation with the rulers, which he thinks would serve the area and British interests. I want to consider it. I could not make a statement before the debate takes place in another place, but I shall try to do so before the debate takes place in this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government have not yet submitted a brief amicus curiae to the International Court of Justice in the proceedings to obtain an advisory opinion on the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia.

We did not submit a statement to the International Court on behalf of the United Kingdom because we did not think it necessary to add to the material already before the Court.

As Her Majesty's Government intend to conceal their views on the legal consequences of South Africa's occupation of Namibia, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say what importance the Government attach to the present advisory proceedings which are before the Court?

We are not concealing our views. We want to hear the views of the judges.

Cannot we at least have a legal opinion from the Attorney-General setting out the view of Her Majesty's Government of the application that is before the International Court?

No, Sir. [Interruption.] I do not think it is necessary. It is better for us to wait for the view of the judges and hear what they have to say before we make any further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the annual average rise in the percentage of the gross national product devoted to official aid to developing countries before 1964, and the annual average fall since then.

Net official flows counting towards the U.N.C.T.A.D. target amounted to 0·56 per cent of g.n.p. in 1960, and 0·52 per cent. in 1964, an average decline of 0·01 per cent. a year. In 1969 the figure was 0·39 per cent., an average decline since 1964 approaching 0·03 per cent. a year.

How much better do we expect it to get, and how soon?

Between 1960 and 1964 we managed, from public and private aid. to reach a flow of 1·03 per cent. From 1965 to 1969 it declined to 0·87 per cent. As my hon. Friend knows, it is our objective to reach 1 per cent. of the g.n.p. from public and private aid as soon as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the percentage of gross national product which the United Kingdom will donate to official flows of overseas aid in 1974–75.

We do not publish such forecasts.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the figure is almost certain to be less than 0·5 of 1 per cent.? If so, why was the Prime Minister so badly briefed as to tell me, in answer to a Parliamentary Question on 2nd February, that he thought it would be more than 0·5?

As we do not publish our forecasts, I will not say whether it was good or bad. However, as I have said, we managed to reach 1·03 per cent. when we were last in office, from both private and public aid. I do not see why we should not do that again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations with the Government of Kenya regarding further resettlement schemes and the purchase of British-owned farms.

As was said in the reply to my hon. Friend's Question on 25th January, a programme of further British aid for Kenya was agreed between the two Governments in April, 1970. This programme included £3·75 million to enable the Kenya Government to make further purchases of British-owned farms for settlement and other purposes. Discussions about implementing this agreement have since been proceeding between the two Governments, and we hope to reach a settlement very shortly.—[Vol. 810, c. 6–7.]

Why has there been this long delay after the agreement was reached—as my hon. Friend pointed out—last year? Is he aware that this continued delay is to some extent undermining confidence in the future of Kenya's agriculture? Will he do his best to persuade the Kenya Government to get this scheme into operation as quickly as possible?

The Kenya Government asked us to defer, after the June talks, to November. This was, of course, a matter for them to decide. We have made good progress, and we hope to he able to make an announcement soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the recommendations and resolutions passed unanimously by the Assembly of the Council of Europe in January, 1971, concerning priorities for the overseas development policy of member countries in the second development decade copies of which have been sent to him.

My right hon. Friend is glad of the interest of the Assembly of the Council of Europe in this important subject, and sympathises with the general trend of its thinking, but I cannot usefully deal in a single statement with all aspects of these recommendations and resolutions, which range widely over many different elements in our aid policy.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. Is he aware that the unanimous view of the Assembly was that the present agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. with its protection of inefficient agriculture and support for the dumping of food surpluses, works directly against the crtical objective of agriculture and rural development in the developing countries? Is he aware that there are, for this reason, doubts about the implications of British entry into the Community, in view of its present policy? Will he seek an assurance from his right hon. Friend to the effect that the conditions of entry will be changed on this vital front?

We have noticed the Assembly's line of thought in this matter of agricultural produce in developing countries, with which we are in broad agreement. I am glad to acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's contribution as rapporteur of the round table on overseas development.