asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what price increases have been agreed by the Commission of the European Economic Community for this year.

None, Sir. The Commission of the European Community have made proposals about certain price increases and changes in the market structure, but these have yet to be agreed by the Council of Ministers.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any revised estimates for the E.E.C. budget over the next five years and for Britain's contribution to it?

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider that the planned reduction in the number of uneconomic agricultural holdings in the Community over the next 10 years will lead to a diminution in the proportion of this country's contribution to the budget if British entry is agreed?

I think that that is very likely. One of the matters that we have been discussing is the change in the size and shape of the budget in the course of years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what permanent safeguards for Anglo-Australian trade have been negotiated in the present discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the European Economic Community.

We consider that Anglo-Australian trade will be adequately safeguarded by transitional arrangements, the details of which we are now negotiating.

In view of the fact that the French permanent representative, Mr. Jean-Mare Boegner, stated last week that Britain's allowance of special facilities for the export of capital for the old Commonwealth must cease and also that membership of the E.E.C. is incompatible with Britain's rôle in the sterling area, first, is it the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy to continue to give Australia preferential access to the London capital market and, secondly, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take off his rose-coloured spectacles and face the fact that the French want to do away with the sterling area altogether?

This Question refers to trade. There are later Questions dealing with sterling. In any event, the hon. Gentleman has not correctly reported the French attitude.

Does all this mean that no permanent safeguards are being sought for Australia, and, if so, does not that constitute a breach in respect of both Australia and New Zealand of the Ottawa Agreements of 1958?

In or out of the Community, no one has permanent trading safeguards. We are in close touch with all the Commonwealth Governments about these matters. Broadly speaking, they have always supported the reasons for British entry.

asked the Secretary for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what bilateral discussions he has had or intends to have, in the context of negotiations for the enlargement of the European Community, with the French Foreign Minister regarding the pricing structure of the common agricultural policy.

I have not had, nor have I plans to have, bilateral discussions specifically on this subject.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend nevertheless make sure that the French Government are aware that the French economy has been the principal victim of the artificially inflated agricultural price levels within the Community and that, in the pursuit of less artificially inflated agricultural prices, British and French interests are identical and not opposed?

All these matters are the subject of general discussion from time to time and no doubt will continue to be. They are not a matter for these negotiations.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that history is now repeating itself in these negotiations? Is not it becoming more and more obvious that this country could never accept the demands made by France in respect of British membership of the Common Market, and are not the present negotiations becoming more and more a futile exercise?

I do not accept that observation. I think that the hon. Gentleman must await the outcome of the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the Code Napoleon is likely to apply to the United Kingdom should she join the European Economic Community.

The Code Napoleon will not apply in the United Kingdom should we join the European Economic Community.

I am greatly reassured to hear my right hon. and learned Friend say that. Will he be a little more forthcoming and say what the position is likely to be in the long term should we enter Europe, when Europe becomes geared to a federal basis?

I thought that I had been clear. The Code Napoleon will not apply. We have had union with Scotland for a long time and have not managed to harmonise our legal systems. The common law will still apply if we join the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to visit Mauritius in order to ascertain their problems associated with the United Kingdom application to join the European Economic Community.

I have at present no plan to visit Mauritius.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider changing his mind? Mauritius is the biggest contributor to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and no country in the Agreement is so dependent on sugar as is Mauritius. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that there is an omission here which it is not too late to rectify?

As my hon. Friend knows I have done my best to visit as many countries of the Commonwealth as I can. I am quite aware of the extreme dependence of Mauritius on sugar. I made it perfectly clear to the conference at Brussels on 16th March that that was so.

To return to the question which I asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman after his return from the Caribbean, may we be assured that all the Commonwealth sugar producers will know what their post-1974 future is likely to be before we accept the Treaty of Rome or accede to the Community rather than live in hope after our entry that after 1974 things will turn out all right?

I have explained to the Community that some assurances must be given for the period after 1974 because of the nature of the cane sugar crop, which has to be planned far ahead. We want what the Jamaican Minister for Trade described to me as bankable assurances.

Would one of the assurances be that Mauritius would retain her quota of sugar?

That is what we are negotiating about. We are negotiating about the quantities which can come into the enlarged Community from the developing countries of the Commonwealth, including Mauritius.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm not only that it is quantified access which he must negotiate about but that vague assurances are no good to countries as dependent on this crop as Mauritius?

The hon. Gentleman is quite correct, and I think I have said so three times already this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has informed members of the European Economic Community that after entry Great Britain will seek changes in the Community's institutions; and what reactions he has received from the several countries of the European Economic Community.

No, Sir. If we become a member of the enlarged Community we shall play a full rôle in the development of the Community's institutions.

How does my right hon. and learned Friend reconcile that reply with the statement of the Prime Minister on 12th February that he intended to refashion new institutions to suit our needs? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Prime Minister's statement gave great encouragement that, should we enter the Community, we should reduce the bureaucratic nature of the Commission and also reform its agricultural policy?

My right hon. Friend asked me a specific Question about what I had told the Community. I have not discussed this matter with the Community, because it does not arise in the context of the negotiations. Both the present Government and their predecessors made it clear that we shall wish to play a full part in the development of the institutions, and these might well include institutions of a new kind, but we take a practical approach to these problems.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that it is open to any member of the E.E.C. to propose changes in the institutions at any time?

There are provisions for amending the Treaty. There is provision, for example, in Article 236.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he consulted with other member nations of the Sterling Area before announcing that the decision on the future of the Sterling Area should be taken after, and not in the course of, the current negotiations with the European Economic Community.

Her Majesty's Government naturally maintain close contacts with member nations of the Sterling Area. If my right hon. Friend is referring to the fact that the rôle of sterling is not a subject for the current negotiations for our entry into the European Economic Community, but one only for discussion with them, I would remind him that this follows from a proposal by the Six themselves.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that it is in the interests of the developing countries that sterling should continue as a reserve currency and that to betray those interests, at the behest of any one member of the European Economic Community, would not he well accepted by the people of the developing countries or of this country?

The future of sterling as a reserve currency is not a matter for these negotiations. We have said that we are happy to have discussions about sterling, and in the context of capital movements it is obviously a proper topic for consideration. But on the rôle of sterling, we take the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) who, in 1967, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that whether in its international or its domestic aspect, we are ready for change.

How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman exclude consideration of the sterling area from his discussions in Brussels when, as he well knows, questions such as that asked earlier about the preferential access of Australia to the United Kingdom capital market is bound to conflict with preferential arrangements for Common Market countries which we have to assume if we join?

It is a relevant question in the context of capital movement. It is understandable that the Community should be concerned at what would happen during the transitional period about capital movements and whether we should, if we operated exchange controls, operate them to the detriment of the Community and to the favour of the sterling area. That is the kind of question which is being discussed.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that he welcomes the initiative which the French have recently taken in having sterling discussed at these negotiations? In particular, will he confirm that he accepts, broadly speaking, the outline of the situation indicated by the French and quoted by the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) in his first supplementary question today.

All these exchanges are confidential, but certainly I am not surprised that this matter should come up for discussion.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that we on this side of the House recognise that some change in the reserve rôle of sterling is required, although, as we said in the last debate, it is a complex matter and might have to be negotiated in an I.M.F. rather than in a Common Market context? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the reference to sterling made by the French representative last Thursday can be calculated only to make successful negotiation this year impossible, and will he make it clear to the French Government that this cannot be a matter for discussion and decision —or, rather, for decision as well as discussion—during this bout of negotiations?

I hold to the views which the Community has itself expressed about the extent to which sterling and its future could properly come to be discussed in the context of the negotiations.

On a point of order. In my supplementary question to Question No. 2 I asked the Minister a question relating to M. Jean-Mare Boegner's statement that membership of the Community was incompatible with Britain's rôle in the sterling area. The Minister replied that that Question would come later, but he has not answered it.

That is not a point of order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent consultations of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with the Canadian Government regarding possible British membership of the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–1662.]

Did the Canadian Government make any suggestions for alternatives to British entry into the Community?

No, Sir. The Canadian Government, like the Canadian people I met, acknowledged the advantage which would be given to them and the Commonwealth by the creation of a stronger and more united Western Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the Common Market negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Common Market negotiations.

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 to the statement I made to the House on 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–1662.]

Is it not clear that a large majority of hon. Members will wish my right hon. and learned Friend success at the next round of Ministerial talks? Meanwhile, would he consider again the desirability of making a Ministerial broadcast, in which he could emphasise not only the strong line which he is taking in Brussels but also the positive advantages of membership for this country, which the public are well able to appreciate when they are properly explained?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes and I hope that the various statements which I make to the House serve that purpose even better.

May I press my right hon. and learned Friend further on the question of sterling? How is what he told us today reconcilable with reports in such papers as The Times and the Observer that France has insisted on the future of sterling becoming a principal matter for the negotiations, which cannot be concluded until that is decided?

I am not responsible for Press statements or Press comment. All I say is that we reached agreement with the Community that the future rôle of sterling would not be a matter for direct negotiation but, of course, that there would be discussions on matters which were relevant to the negotiations.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what assessments he has been able to make during the negotiations of the Community's attitude towards overseas aid; and to what extent he thinks the Community will see enlargement as an opportunity to mount more effective overseas aid policies?

The Community has a very good record on overseas aid, and I certainly hope that if the Community were enlarged we should, all together, be able to do a great deal more than is being done now for the developing countries.

My right hon. and learned Friend constantly says that he is not responsible for Press statements and, of course, he is not, but is it not a fact that the French have said quite unequivocally that the price of British entry must be the abandonment of the reserve rôle of sterling? In these circumstances, which are fundamental to the whole of Britain's national economy, would not my right hon. and learned Friend himself consider abandoning equivocation and making a perfectly clear statement that we do not in any circumstances propose, inside or outside the Common Market, to abandon the rôle of sterling?

As to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, all I can say is that these things have not been said to me. As to the second part, if my hon. Friend studies what has been said by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, and what we said in the debate on 20th and 21st January of this year, he will see that we have made it perfectly clear that we are willing over the years to contemplate changes in the rôle of sterling.

Is it not clear that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has accepted, for example, a common agricultural policy which, in any case, is against the policy of this side of the House; that most people are now aware both of the short-term and the long-term effects of entry into the Common Market and that all of them, or a majority, are opposed to it? Is it not clear, therefore, that he should stop this messing about trying to get in, and should now concentrate on dealing with the country's economic problems, which need urgent solution?

On 8th May, 1967, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, then Prime Minister, said—as will be seen in c. 1066 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—and I think I quote him accurately, that he would be misleading the House if he gave the impression that the common agricultural policy was negotiable.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm, contrary to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and others, that the existence of the sterling area is an encumbrance on the British economy and not a benefit?

I would not go as far as that. There is no doubt, as we have always said, that we must in the years ahead contemplate changes. Those changes may take place within the context of a European political and monetary integration or, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, in the context of international monetary arrangements. But all these things have been very thoroughly debated and discussed, and I do not think that there is any misunderstanding, or that there need be any misunderstanding, about the position.

Further to the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes), can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us how far he has considered the implications of the contribution that would be necessary to the European Development Fund, and how far we should need to increase our own bilateral aid programme, taking account of that, in order to maintain our traditional obligations, particularly to India and Pakistan?

We are discussing what our contribution should be to the European Development Fund. Obviously, we shall be contributors and to the extent that aid is given under that umbrella we shall take that into account in determin- ing our own bilateral aid programme as it develops. But there is no reason to suppose that one is substituting for the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent developments in the negotiations, he will reconsider his decision that there is no need to consider alternatives to entry into the European Economic Community.

The present Government, like their predecessors, considered the alternatives to an application to enter the European Communities and decided that the policy which best met the national interest, as that of the rest of Europe and the free world, was to apply for membership and to seek the enlargement of the Communities.

That being so, is it not extraordinary for one, when buying a house, to tell the vendor that one will not buy any other house? As negotiations become daily more hopeless, is it not time that the Government were considering—just considering—alternatives?

But we are telling them that this is the house we like. If we are unable to negotiate for that house, we shall certainly have to contemplate doing without it.

As even the Foreign Secretary has said that we are not prepared to hang about on these negotiations indefinitely, are the Government now considering a constructive policy that we should pursue if these negotiations were to break down, which is clearly now possible?

No, Sir. We are proceeding on the basis that, given the political will, which is stated to exist on all sides, reasonable men could settle issues outstanding in these negotiations in a fairly short space of time.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the negotiations in respect of the European Economic Community to end and with what result.

As I told the House in my statement on 18th March, I believe that it is entirely reasonable and possible that we should reach agreement with the Communities on the main issues at or shortly after the next Ministerial meeting. —[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that many of the negotiating points have already been agreed?

That is so.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that although he has made an assessment of the social security position he has made no assessment whatever of the effect on the National Health Service? Will he now make an estimate of the effect on our hospital service when consultants' qualications are mutually acceptable and when because most consultants are part-time there will be a heavy drain on the N.H.S. because of consultants going abroad to perform operations and being able to do so within only an hour's travelling time?

That point does not arise out of this Question. I understand that there are anxieties on this score. The Community has not gone far in dealing with some of the professional matters which the hon. Gentleman raises. If he will table a Question on the subject, I will try to give him a full reply.

When the negotiations are completed, what steps will be taken to test public opinion? What steps will be taken to see that public opinion supports our entry into the E.E.C., as was promised before the General Election?

We must await the outcome of the negotiations and then, as any Government must, put these matters to Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in order to avoid weakening British regional policies with the consequence of increased regional disparities, he will list minimum British requirements in this matter and submit them in the form of a Protocol to the Treaty of Rome, as did existing signatories when the Treaty was negotiated.

Her Majesty's Government accept the Treaties of the Communities and the decisions which have flowed from them. The Treaty as it stands makes provision for regional policies.

May I draw my right hon. and learned Friend's attention to the three-year research study carried out by Glasgow University which, apart from showing that the present regional policies pursued in this country are out of line with regional policies for growth zones pursued by the E.E.C., shows that for all its economic growth, the Community has worsened the problems of the regions at its periphery, with income per head being six and a half times greater in the richest than in the poorest regions and the highest unemployment being 70 times greater in the poorest regions? Does my right hon. and learned Friend not appreciate the concern that we in the North of Britain feel lest Europe should make us more peripheral than we already are?

There is no need for this anxiety. A wide range of development policies are pursued by the Six. As long as there was not a co-ordinated policy, we should pursue our own policies. However, Articles 92–94 of the Treaty make provision for regional policies. These have not been fully utilised yet, but we for our part hope that they will be utilised in due course; and that will be a factor which will change the size and shape of the Community's budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what permanent safeguards for British trade with Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan he has proposed in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.

We consider that British trade with Australia, Canada, India and Pakistan will be adequately safeguarded by transitional arrangements, the details of which we are now negotiating. The position of India and Pakistan will be improved by the offers made under the U.N.C.T.A.D. Generalised Preference Scheme. Moreover, the Community has indicated its readiness to examine with India and Pakistan after enlargement problems in the field of trade with a view to reaching appropriate solutions and affirmed that it will seek to expand and reinforce trading relationships with these countries.

Does that mean that the Government are not even seeking any safeguards for British trade with these four major Commonwealth countries?

The Question refers to "permanent safeguards". Nobody has permanent safeguards of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent his proposal to the European Economic Community that the United Kingdom contribution to the European Economic Community Budget in the first year of a transitional period should be 3 per cent. was based on his assessment of what the United Kingdom could afford to pay.

It was based on what we thought reasonable and equitable.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman confident that under a Conservative Government the United Kingdom will be able to afford the 7 per cent. to 8 per cent. contribution which is likely to emerge as the compromise figure at the end of the negotiations?

We shall be able to afford whatever is reasonable and equitable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the European Economic Community about the United Kingdom membership of the European Development Bank; what amount the United Kingdom will have to contribute to the capital of this bank; and what amount will have to be contributed to the reserves of this bank.

If the hon. Member is referring to the European Investment Bank, we have reached agreement with the Community on the principle of British membership and are still discussing the modalities with them. I shall inform the House of the outcome when the discussions are complete.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take care to avoid any further drain on the capital reserves of this country, apart from what we shall lose under the free-movement-of-capital provisions? Does he have in mind any maximum figure for our contribution?

We shall certainly take our proportionate share of the capital of the bank. At present the capital of the bank is 1,000 million units of account, of which 25 per cent. are paid up.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the current negotiations with the European Economic Community, he will insist that the unanimity rule within the European Economic Community's Council of Ministers should apply to all decisions taken on the harmonisation of rates of indirect and direct taxation.

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that that gives me a certain amount of comfort? So much has already been conceded at Brussels that the unanimity rule is perhaps the only thing left to guarantee our national interest. As the French are now approaching these negotiations with something of the metallic obduracy of a one-armed bandit, is he aware that this Question is totally superfluous?

Why, then, did the hon. Gentleman ask it? It seems reasonable to me, though he would have found the answer had he looked at Article 100 of the Treaty of Rome, which provides for unanimous decisions in matters of this kind.

In the course of the agreement which my right hon. and learned Friend says he has already reached with the Community on financial matters, has he pawned Australia's free access to the British capital market in exchange for other hypothetical financial advantages in Europe? Will he not say in a forthright fashion that the Australians will always be able to come here for their capital without prejudice from any of the arrangements made in Europe?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the second part is that we must have discussions about these transitional arrangements in regard to capital movements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether Her Majesty's Government have made any new proposals in the context of the Four-Power talks on the Middle East since the last extension of the Egyptian-Israeli ceasefire arrangements;

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

In his proposals to the Governments of the United Arab Republic and Israel, Dr. Jarring sought conditional commitments from them on peace and withdrawal respectively. The United Arab Republic Government's reply gave the commitment for which Dr. Jarring had asked on the nature of peace. Dr. Jarring still seeks from Israel a commitment on withdrawal within the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 242 of November, 1967. It is now more necessary than ever that these negotiations should be enabled to make progress and the Government will continue to play their full part in encouraging the parties to this end, both in bilateral discussions and through the Four-Power talks.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. One does not wish to make the negotiations more difficult, but bearing in mind two factors of immediate importance which are of crucial significance—the approach of the end of the so-called period of grace and the apparent and indeed disconcerting deterioration of relations between the United States and Israel—do not the Government feel that there might at last be a possibility of some unilateral British initiative vis-à-vis the four-Power talks and the Jarring talks to make sure that negotiations continue on a meaningful basis and eventually lead to direct negotiations between the parties concerned?

Yes. That would be our intention. If there is the slightest opening for any initiative by the Government, we shall take it. I think that probably public diplomacy at the present time is a mistake.

Will my right hon. Friend continue to use his best endeavours to persuade the Government of Israel that their long-term security would be better served by recognition by the Arab States of international guarantees than by clinging to their present wartime frontiers?

I share my hon. Friend's view. I think that there is an opportunity now of which Israel would do well to take advantage. But we equally understand Israel's desire for secure boundaries within which she may live.

I am sure that the entire House will be glad that the Foreign Secretary was able to make a statement marginally more hopeful than might have been expected when foreign affairs were debated before Christmas. Perhaps I may ask a question on one point concerning the guarantees that Great Britain might be able to give to the affected Powers. Taking into account the interest and enthusiasm which certainly Arab Governments have for Britain to underwrite some of the peace guarantees, would the Government, even allowing for the enormous pressures on British forces now, be prepared to consider participating in a force which would guarantee peace on the basis of resolutions of the United Nations Security Council?

It is not wise to speculate as to the specific nature of guarantees or the countries which might take part in a guaranteeing force, but in certain circumstances the British Government would participate in a guarantee.

Since the Soviet Union is the only one of the four Powers with troops on the ground in the Middle East, and as it has reinforced its forces in Egypt throughout the cease-fire period, have we suggested to the Soviet Government that it should withdraw some of its forces which are now in the Middle East?

That is rather a wider question. What this question deals with is the nature of guarantees and the possible composition of the guaranteeing force, mixed up, of course, with demilitarised zones and all that. The wider question of limiting armaments to the Middle East on all sides should be looked at, but not particularly in the context of this Question.

I welcome those replies, but will the right hon. Gentleman meanwhile consider raising at the Security Council the question of the construction of large blocks of suburban flats for Jewish residents in Arab Jerusalem, which is very provocative, is violating three separate unanimous resolutions of the Security Council, and is an act of vandalism condemned by architects and town planners all over the world?

I do not think that that is a matter in which the British Government should take an initiative.

Irrespective of Jerusalem, which is in a case by itself, I think, does my right hon. Friend think it reasonable to expect the Israelis to withdraw to the pre-war boundaries, unless we are prepared to speculate about the form of guarantee which will be given to them—and not only to speculate but to make definite proposals?

I think that the first thing which has to happen is that more definition must be given to the Israelis' requirements regarding a frontier. Then, of course, unless there is agreement between, let us say, Israel and Egypt, there is nothing to guarantee. So we want a good deal of information before we can be certain of the nature of the guarantees we offer, but there has been no doubt in the mind of the Israeli Government since the talks in New York that we are prepared to participate in guarantees, and that they could be provided to supplement an agreement.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise, when he speaks of withdrawal by Israel to the pre-1967 frontiers, that this has been interpreted by the Arab Governments as giving comfort to their proposals? Does he not realise that it is totally unacceptable to the Israeli Government to think in terms of withdrawing, for example, from Sharm- el-Sheikh and the Golan Heights? Does he not also recognise that this is a matter of survival for them?

Yes, Sir. The hon. Gentleman will remember that Israel said that she would withdraw when she accepted Resolution 242. The question is what adjustments are needed to the 1967 frontiers in order to give Israel the security which she has a right to expect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the Geneva Disarmament Conference towards an agreement to ban biological weapons.

Discussions are continuing on this subject, and we shall be continuing to urge agreeent on the lines proposed in the British draft Convention for the Prohibition of Biological Methods of Warfare. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware that we put forward a revised version of that at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on 18th August, 1970.

Is there not a danger that a technical break-through in this field might make agreeent even more difficult? Is it not also a fact that verification in this field is less difficult than in some? Is there not good reason, therefore, for the Conference to make a special effort this session to reach agreement on this matter?

Yes, I endorse my hon. Friend's views on this point. This is one reason why Britain, on the initiative of the previous Government, took up this aspect of biological warfare as one for urgency, and we are pursuing that as fast as we can.

We on this side entirely agree with the attitude taken by the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on this. It was an initiative of ours, and we are very glad that it has been continued by the present Government. Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind the possibility of a fairly full statement as to the position in the Conference, without prejudice to the negotiations, difficult as they are, which are proceeding, in the form of an interim paper on progress generally?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first remarks. I should like to consider his second point. I am all for publishing things where that can be helpful, but there are some occasions on which it would not perhaps produce the desired result. I should like to look at that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made for the convening and subsequent work of the Commonwealth study group on Indian Ocean security.

These arrangements are in the hands of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, who is still consulting the Governments concerned.

I am grateful for that reply. Will my right hon. Friend continue to do his utmost by way of the study group to get our strategic arrangements in the Indian Ocean on to a wider footing, because exclusive dependence on Simonstown may prove an increasingly uncomfortable posture internationally during the next few years?

I should very much like to have a wide discussion with members of the Commonwealth about the security of the Indian Ocean, which is a very large problem, as my hon. Friend implied.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what exchanges he has had with Lagos on this matter, because we understand that General Gowon has pulled out of this eight-nation team? It is no good sheltering behind Mr. Arnold Smith here, since we have had direct communication with the Nigerian Government.

I assure the hon. Member that I am not trying to shelter behind Mr. Arnold Smith or anyone else. General Gowon said that they would not participate in the group, but I thought that that fact was known.

Will the study include an examination of the security of under-sea cable links belonging to Commonwealth countries in the Indian Ocean?

That is one of the matters which could be included.

While strongly supporting the Foreign Secretary's apparent desire to keep this study group afloat, for the reasons given by his hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane), may I ask whether he is aware that the Government's decision this week to receive a further arms purchasing mission from South Africa could only prejudice the chance of getting any other Commonwealth countries to attend such a conference and may well have the most serious consequences for the forthcoming meeting on sterling balances, in which African and Commonwealth countries are very deeply concerned?

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the repercussions of this matter. There has been a South African mission in Europe and it asked whether it could come here. I see no reason why it should not. It does not make the least difference to the commitment which I gave the House not long ago—that the Government's policy remains as it was at the time of our last debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the increasing external problems and decreasing internal tension in Cyprus he will now initiate proposals to allow a reduction of the United Nations forces, including the United Kingdom contribution.

We should like to see the United Nations Force, and our own contribution to it, reduced if possible. But we have to bear in mind the operational requirements of its important peacekeeping task. Of course, however, the matter will be kept under review.

Will my right hon. Friend consider inviting some of our Western European Union allies who are members of N.A.T.O., as are Greece and Turkey, to participate in this force?

I should not be against it in principle, but the general effort is to reduce this force. It has been reduced from '1,000 to just over 3,000. I should prefer to proceed with the effort of trying to solve the problems and to get rid of the force, but if we have to continue with it, I would not put any bar to my hon. Friend's proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his attendance at the last meeting of the Monnet Committee.

I attended the meeting of M. Monnet's Committee on 23rd and 24th February as a representative of the Conservative Party. As hon. Members will be aware, representatives of all three parties attend meetings of the Monnet Committee, together with representatives of political parties of member countries of the Six. The meetings provide a useful forum for inter-European contacts. While I was in Bonn, I took the opportunity to meet the Federal German Chancellor and Foreign Minister.

Are there not enough forums in the European context? As the Monnet Committee has, as its main objective, the creation of a Federal United States of Europe, has my right hon. Friend made it abundantly clear that the Leader of the Opposition, on whose support he will have to rely if he wishes to get an agreement in this House to join the Common Market, does not support any federal relationship with Europe? In that case, why does he go on attending this Committee, even as a representative of the Conservative Party?

Many views are expressed in the Monnet Committee and outside it about the future political structure of Europe, and that gives us a good opportunity to meet people who have the future general well-being of the European Continent in mind. I would not pay too much attention to the particular resolutions, but the spirit of going into Europe and contributing to European unity is a good one.

Does the attendance of the Foreign Secretary at these meetings of the action committee for a United States of Europe indicate to our friends on the Continent that the Conservative Party, as distinct from the Government, is in favour of a United States of Europe?

No, Sir. The title of "United States of Europe" is one that I personally would have avoided. I have always said that I do not like labels: "Federal" or "Confederal". What will happen in regard to the political structure of Europe is that institutions will be set up, if there is something of mutual advantage to be done, and that is how we shall proceed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that M. Monnet himself at the last meeting made it absolutely clear that the title of the Committee does not necessarily point either to a federal or to a confederal Europe?

That is so. That is why I think these labels are dangerous.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments regarding the new British immigration proposals and changes in law, and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Immigration Bill which is currently going through Parliament runs contrary to the speeches which were made by the Prime Minister in India and Pakistan in January and to the declaration of the Commonwealth? Did any discussions take place with Commonwealth Heads of Government before this Bill was embarked upon?

Immigration to the United Kingdom is a matter solely for Her Majesty's Government. We informed Commonwealth Governments before introducing the Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many approaches he has received about the problem of British nationals going abroad, and thereby evading payment of alimony to divorced or separated wives in the United Kingdom; and if he will introduce legislation for marking the passports of those United Kingdom nationals against whom an alimony order has been given, so that countries of entry will have greater knowledge of potential immigrants who owe current alimony.

This is a difficult problem. I am not convinced, however, that what the hon. Gentleman proposes would be a proper use of the passport or would materially help to solve the problem.

Agreeing that it is a difficult problem, that an issue of liberty is involved and that Australia House has been helpful to me in this matter, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that with the increase of divorce and separation, more and more men are simply "doing a bunk" to Australia and are not carrying out their obligations? If they cannot be traced, is it not tough on either the British taxpayers or the women who are left behind?

I have some sympathy with the point the hon. Gentleman raises, but the purpose of the passport is, on the whole, to facilitate travel and not to impede it. There are different ways of dealing with this matter, and I do not think that the passport is a good way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Council of Europe about the sale by the United Kingdom of arms to South Africa; and what reply he has sent.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about arms sales to South Africa from the governments of Italy, France, Holland and Germany; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir. The matter has, of course, been discussed with a number of other governments, but the content of such discussions is confidential.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is precisely the answer I expected, and may I draw the attention of some of my hon. Friends to it, because we have been engaged in other discussions on this matter?

I am all for the hon. Gentleman drawing the attention of his hon. Friends to my answers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the Council of Europe, and indeed this House, that we shall sell no arms other than concerned with our legal obligations, otherwise we shall be in the unenviable state of having sanctions applied against us by the African States when we do not know, and when perhaps they do not know, whether we shall ever sell any further arms? Would not a firm reassurance at this stage save us from the worst of both worlds?

No, Sir. I have already said—we debated the matter only a short time ago—that the Government reserve their position on this, and we must be the judges whether at any future date we sell any more arms to South Africa.

In the event of such representations being received, will my right hon. Friend, in view of the French position as an enthusiastic supplier of arms to South Africa, discover whether the French Government are associated with these representations as sender or as recipient?

There is no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member that the French sell large quantities of arms to South Africa, and that is their affair.

As the Foreign Secretary said that he has discussed these matters with our colleagues in the Council of Europe, and since many of us in the House share an interest in the subject, can he tell either them or us whether it is a fact that there is a South African buying mission for further arms in this country at the moment?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman must just have come into the Chamber or not have been attending. Yes, there is a mission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the Government of Turkey how international help can be given to those Turkish farmers who earn their living by producing cannabis and other drug raw materials, to enable them to switch their production to other cash crops.

Many Governments are considering possible lines of action against drug abuse throughout the world. If the Turkish Government wanted to do so, I should be ready to discuss bilateral assistance for rural development, with the object of encouraging the substitution of crops for the opium Poppy.

Is the Foreign Office aware that it was the view of a number of American politicians making an international drugs study, including Congressman Jim Scheuer of New York, that this was perhaps one of the ways to tackle the evil?

As I said, if the Turkish Government indicated a willingness to do so, I should certainly be ready to enter discussion with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals there are for strengthening economic cooperation with the CENTO Powers after the completion of the railway from Turkey to Teheran.

The railway is only one part of the CENTO programme of economic co-operation. The programme will continue after the railway is completed, and we shall still play our part in it.

In view of the importance of this new link with Turkey, will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Turkish authorities to the Middle East Development Organisation, which is widely supported in N.A.T.O., to see whether it can help with further development?

I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many vacancies for agricultural economists to work overseas remain unfilled on the books of the Overseas Development Administration.

Fifteen, Sir.

In view of the urgency of this matter and the need to balance both industry and agriculture in the developing countries, what special action does the Minister propose to take to fill those 15 vacancies?

This is important. There is great pressure on and demand for these agricultural economists, of whom there is a rather short supply, and I am, therefore, trying to take several steps to increase the number of home posts in this field and also to increase the number of agricultural economists in the Corps of Specialists with particular relationship with my Department.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in the OFFICIAL REPORT the conferences, training courses and seminars on rural development in which the Overseas Development Administration will be participating this year.

I will do so, Sir.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman to pay much greater regard to this in the whole conduct of his administration of the rural development effort, not just in economic terms but particularly in educational terms and in terms of mutual aid, co-operatives and the extension of the kind of activities which not only enable rural development to take place but give basic democratic understanding to village leaders?

I take account of what the hon. Gentleman says. If he reads the information which I shall publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see, I think, that there is a great deal of such activity going on.

Could the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the concern being shown by the previous Government for rural development in dry areas is being continued by the present Government?

The right hon. Lady will see that the concern shown by the previous Government is in no way diminished under this Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to visit the International Research and Development Centre in Canada.

I have no plans at present to do so.

In view of the desperate employment crisis in the developing countries and the urgent need for research into their unique economic and social problems, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the establishment of this centre by the Canadian Government last year was greatly welcomed? Do Her Majesty's Government have similar plans?

I feel that our position and that of the Canadian Government in this respect are not comparable. I welcome the setting up of the centre in Canada, and I shall view with great interest what it does, but we have, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of connections with the universities and other bodies, including the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex, which are making the kind of study which I think he has in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take the initiative in seeking to convene, through the United Nations or otherwise, a world conference to discuss as a matter of urgency the problem of increasing population.

The United Nations has already decided to hold a World Population Conference in 1974. We supported that decision and intend to play a full part in the conference and in various regional conferences leading up to it.

Does not that reply reveal a dangerous complacency about one of the major problems facing the world today? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the world population will double by the end of the century, and that it is likely that there will be millions of deaths from starvation, apart from the other serious problems which such an increase in population will bring?

I cannot understand the charge of complacency. The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would arrange to set up a world population conference, and I said that one is to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Commonwealth Education Conference which the Minister for Overseas Development attended recently.

Twenty-nine Commonwealth countries sent representatives to the conference, which undoubtedly strengthened the educational links between us. Excellent administrative arrangements were made by the Australian Government and the Commonwealth Secretariat.

I am delighted to hear that the Report will be issued as a White Paper, but can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how far non-traditional methods of education possibly suitable for use in developing countries were considered, and how far the conference was concerned primarily with traditional methods, with curricula and with higher education?

There were important discussions about the whole field of out-of-school training. It would take too long to go into detail now, but I will readily write to the right hon. Lady about it, if I may.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the report to him of the chairman of the Development Assistance Committee on the British overseas aid memorandum for 1969.

No, Sir.

Would it not be useful for Parliament and the public to be aware of the frank comments which the chairman of the Development Assistance Committee makes each year on the various financial programmes, and the British programmes in particular, so as to help them assess the part played by the British Government?

The chairman of the D.A.C. writes on a personal basis to the members of the Committee, and it has not been the practice to publish those comments from him. On the other hand, the O.E.C.D., as the hon. Gentleman knows, publishes an annual report by the chairman on the development assistance efforts of all the D.A.C. member countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his estimate of Great Britain's performance on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development aid target in respect of official flows in 1970–71.

It is too early to attempt a considered estimate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that on present proposals for an increase in gross aid over the next few years there is likely to be little increase in the percentage of our gross national product going into official aid, and certainly nowhere near enough to bring us remotely within sight of the Pearson target by 1975? Will he consider increasing gross aid to take an increased percentage of G.N.P?

The reason I did not want to give an estimate at present, as the hon. Gentleman asked, is that any estimate made now without full knowledge of the figures might confuse him and the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that only eight countries reached the Pearson target last year, that is, Switzerland, Denmark and the six Common Market countries?

My hon. and gallant Friend know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we should do our best to reach that target by 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Great Britain now proposes to make to the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) on 9th February, I have increased the original grant of £200,000 to £250,000 for the year 1970–71. For 1971–72, I shall increase it further to £275,000.—[Vol. 811, c. 154.]

I welcome that reply, but does the right hon. Gentleman feel that even those increases are sufficient, in view of the great problem faced in population control?

They represent an increase of over five times in the past four years, which is quite considerable. The hon. Gentleman will realise that they are not the total of our contributions towards family planning, which are made through other agencies and voluntary agencies as well.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will be a very welcome guest at the function next week to launch the new campaign of the International Parenthood Federation, and that it will give him a good opportunity to show what this country can do—because we are one of the most highly-populated countries in the world—to enable other countries to profit by our experience in tackling the desperate problem of overpopulation?