asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what plans he now has for hiving-off the more profitable parts of the postal and telecommunications services to private interests.

None at present.

What does the Minister mean by "None at present?" Is there not an element of absurdity in the Government's philosophy of intending to hand back to private enterprise profitable parts of nationalised industries, and nationalising private enterprise which is making a loss?

I cannot go beyond the answer I have given, that I have no proposals to put before the House in this respect.

The Minister has repeated today what he told us on the last occasion when this subject was raised, namely, that he had no proposals to put before the House at present. I have been pressing for an answer for six months. Will he go a little further and say that he has no intention of putting proposals to the House to this effect?

I cannot give any blanket assurance to the House on all the activities of the Post Office. All I am pre- pared to say today is that I have no specific proposals to put forward at this stage.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement on the future of Radio Leicester.

As stated in the White Paper "An Alternative Service of Radio Broadcasting", the Government has concluded that the existing B.B.C. local radio stations, including Radio Leicester, should continue.

Will the Minister now state whether the existing radio stations, and in particular Radio Leicester, will be permitted to operate on medium wave bands and, having regard to the excellence of the service provided by Radio Leicester, will he give an assurance that there will be no commercial station in opposition in Leicester?

No, I cannot give that latter assurance. On the subject of medium frequencies, it will be a question of applying under international agreements to use the medium frequencies which are primarily allocated to other countries. Thereafter, a frequency plan will be drawn up which will provide medium frequencies for the services to be run both by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and by the B.B.C. I hope that medium frequencies will be available for the B.B.C. local stations at the same time as the commercial stations start.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received since the publication of his White Paper on commercial radio.

I have received about 20 letters from the public.

Would the Minister care to say what is the nature of those letters? Is it the case that many of the correspondents are extremely confused and worried about what the White Paper means? Have not various interpretations been put on the White Paper by various organisations and people, such as Hughie Green and others, and would it not have been better if a Green Paper had been issued so that the true nature of the situation could have been reflected in its colour?

I do not think the degree of clarity of the White Paper has caused my correspondents any anxiety. Some have written offering their services, and some have written to say that they do not believe in competition in broadcasting.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to continue to make stamps available in the old denominations during the transitional period of decimalisation, in order to permit the accurate pre-payment of mail by the use of more than one stamp.

No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office and a direction would be inappropriate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a great shortage of old denomination stamps in South-East London and that grave injustice is being done to those people who have stocks of old denomination stamps still available?

I do not think that any particular difficulties should arise. The Post Office, in laying down acceptable combinations of old and new stamps, has followed the Decimal Currency Board's shoppers' table.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the Post Office charges 12½ per cent. or 15 per cent. commission to take back stocks of old stamps which could have been made up on "D" day but for the strike, which has caused people to spend more money than they need have done? Will he look at this again?

I am sure that the Post Office will consider the point put by my hon. Friend, but he knows that the Post Office has always legitimately made a charge for cashing stamps since a cost is involved to the Post Office in doing this.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Corporation to publish details of the stages by which their services return to normal, following any disruption of service.

No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office.

Will the Minister say how it was that Mr. Ryland gave the impression on television immediately after the strike that the first-class post would be back to normal within a few days? Is he aware that many people have been posting first-class letters on the assumption that they would get to their destination the next day only to find that some have taken as long as a week? Why could not the Post Office have made a series of announcements guaranteeing that 90 per cent. of first-class mail would be delivered within two days, or three days, and so on?

My information is that Mr. Ryland warned on television and at a Press conference immediately after the strike that it would take up to six weeks to get back to normal. I am told that the first-class post is back to normal, although there are still some second-class arrears at a few offices.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what general directions he has given to the Post Office Corporation relating to the losses made on postal and money orders service.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that in the financial year from March, 1970 the postal order service and the money order service between them lost £3 million'? How long are losses on this scale to be tolerated, since ultimately such losses have to be financed by the general taxpayer?

There is a great deal of force in what my hon. Friend says. The recent increases in tariffs for these services were expected to avoid incurring further losses in the period to March, 1973. The prospects are being reviewed in the aftermath of the strike.

Is the Minister aware that I do not like the sound of the last three or four words he used—namely, that the prospects are being reviewed. Is he further aware that we view with grave concern any interference with these two services, which are used by many ordinary people? The postal order and money order services are an essential part of the present system, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will squash any idea that they are to be disposed of.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me, each time he asks a question, to say that there will never be a change in anything the Post Office does. He will recall that it was the Labour Government that set targets for the Post Office. If these targets are to be achieved, then it will probably be necessary from time to time to make changes and, as he knows, a review is to be undertaken by the Post Office to look into the scope of its services.

How is the Post Office to reach the targets which were laid down if the Government threaten to hive off its profitable sectors?

The profitability of the Post Office will be taken into account in any proposals which are put before the House.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what are the salaries paid to the executive heads of the postal and telecommunications administrations in each of the European Economic Community countries; and whether, in order to facilitate United Kingdom entry, he will bring the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board into line with these salaries.

It is not possible to make any useful comparison of this kind. In any case, the Post Office as a public corporation has at present no counterpart in Europe.

The information may not be useful to the Minister, but will he please give it? Since the Government appear to be anxious to go into the Common Market under any conditions, they will have to implement its wages and conditions—which in the Community are about three times as high as they are in this country. Does he intend to treble the wages of Post Office workers and all those in the postal services to help us get into the Common Market?

I am not sure that there is any obligation whatever, either inside or outside the Common Market, to pay the same rates to executives or to anybody else in the nationalised industries as prevail in Europe.

Since the Minister has been asked to look at the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board, will he say when we are to have a Chairman?

I hope to be able to make an announcement on that matter fairly shortly.

Is not one of the arguments advanced for our going into Europe the fact that wages in this country will rise to the same level as the wages paid in the Common Market?

The Question, as my hon. Friend will see, asks me to bring the salary of the Chairman of the Post Office Board into line with the salaries of people who do not actually exist in Europe, since there is no counterpart to the Post Office. I am afraid that the proposition as put to me has its difficulties.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what has been the increase in the number of new telephones installed in the United Kingdom between 31st December, 1970, and 31st March, 1971.

I understand that in the period the Post Office supplied 277,295 new exchange connections.

Is the Minister aware that the delays in installing new telephones are very serious and that I have had a letter from the manager of the Canterbury telephone exchange informing me that 23 of his contracts are behind schedule? Is the Minister satisfied that he has enough powers to put some ginger behind the Post Office?

There are delays and in recent years there has been a lengthening of the waiting list; but, as I made clear in the debate which took place shortly before Easter, this is due mainly to the unforeseen rate of demand which has occurred. The number of connections made is substantially greater than the estimates made a year ago.

What is the average length of delay caused by the failure of equipment manufacturers to deliver equipment on target? Will the Minister make it clear that the reason for the delay in fitting telephones is the shortage of equipment ordered from private enterprise manufacturers?

I should need notice to give the hon. Gentleman the figure for which he asks, but there are, as he says, delays in delivery of equipment from private manufacturers. The point I am making is that it is not solely their fault, since there has been a greater demand than they were led to expect.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many Post Office workers did not return to their employment at the conclusion of the postal workers' dispute.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many postal workers were employed by the Post Office on the day before and the day after the postal strike.

These are management matters for the Post Office, who have indicated that additional wastage was less than half of 1 per cent. of all postal workers.

Was not the fact that the wastage was not much more than usual due to the situation that workers were not replaced when they left their jobs? What steps does the Minister propose to take to increase recruitment into the Post Office, and when does he expect to receive the report of the inquiry into the Post Office dispute?

I have no indication when the committee of settlement is likely to report, although I understand that it will be before the end of this month. Recruitment is a matter for the Post Office.

Is the Minister aware of the fact that during the postal dispute the West Midlands Gas Board went in for a spot of strike-breaking by putting out 600,000 bills to a pirate firm and has now had to admit that thousands of them were never delivered? Would the Minister confirm that the only reliable source of delivery is the Post Office?

I am afraid that the incident about which the hon. Gentleman purports to give details is unknown to me.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the average cost and the average proceeds of a telegram in the last financial year of the Post Office Corporation.

I do not have this information but the Post Office's last Annual Report and Accounts show that the service lost £2·6 million in 1969–70.

Since the figures indicate that every telegram sent loses money for the Post Office, would my hon. Friend look again at this service, in which 90 per cent. of the telegrams are greetings telegrams or business telegrams? How can the Post Office justify that sort of telegram and make this sort of loss on the service?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that complications are involved, since there would need to be international negotiations on the international telegram service before any proposal to cease operating the telegram service could be entertained. Also to be considered is the question of the life-and-death telegram service, but the telegraph service, along with other services of the Post Office, is being looked at by the Post Office Board.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has with regard to appointments of Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

I hope that an appointment to fill the present vacancy for a national governor for Scotland will be announced very soon; and that thereafter, new appointments will be made as existing ones end.

In view of the charges which are frequently made on each side of the House that the B.B.C. is biased in the direction of the party opposite, whichever it is, would the Minister consider the possibility of appointing two governors who would be specifically charged with the duty of seeing that a proper balance is preserved? When does he propose to have a debate in the House on the alternative service to the B.B.C.?

On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said that there will be a debate. I am not able to give any indication when that will be.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the governors have responsibility for policy and that that is a pretty heavy responsibility? Will he see that among the governors, as well as retired people, there is some representation of youth and vigour? Does my right hon. Friend also accept that the Director-General has the honourable place of chief executive?

I accept the validity of those points.

May I ask the Minister why we have had a vacancy for the Scottish national governor since November last year? Since it was known that the post would obviously become vacant some months before, why has there been such a long delay this time?

This is a longer delay than one would want to see, but finding the best available person is sometimes a lengthy process.

Are not all the governors of the B.B.C. already charged with the duty of seeing that a proper balance is maintained?

That is so.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will cease the present practice whereby his Department keep under constant review the prices and charges for which he has responsibility and initiate a system of monthly reviews of such prices and charges to enable him to show from month to month to what extent since June, 1970, the Government's policy of reducing prices and costs is operating so far as it affects his Departmental responsibilities; and whether he will make a statement.

No, Sir. Monthly reviews would not be a sensible arrangement.

Surely the Government want to publicise the fact that each month they are bringing prices down and cutting the cost of living. Surely one of the most progressive Ministers in the Government would like to participate in this by giving monthly accounts showing how prices are being reduced because of his activities. This is a wonderful suggestion which I should think he would take up.

I hate to turn down all the hon. Gentleman's suggestions. Apart from postal tariffs, of which there are a large number, I am directly responsible for the fees of 80 main types of broadcasting and other radio licences. To review all those every month would not be a worthwhile activity.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to ascertain the number of additional staff required for postmen to read electric and gas meters while they deliver mail.

No, Sir.

The Minister will be aware that his reply is no surprise to me. Will he look at the proposal again? Is he not aware of the number of postmen who take part-time employment? Is there not some advantage to be gained by having electricity and gas meters read by postmen who are well known to the residents rather than by surprise callers whom they do not know?

This is not a new suggestion. I believe that it has been considered by both the Gas and Electricity Councils, together with a number of other suggestions which have been made over the years. However, I am sure that they and the Post Office will consider what my hon. Friend said.

While the Minister is, I hope, rejecting the advice of his hon. Friend, will he also reject the advice offered to him this morning that the postmen ought to deliver the milk and the bread as well?

It is not unknown for postmen to do that in some areas. However, this is not a matter for a general direction.

The postmen would certainly be interested in delivering a leaflet for the right hon. Gentleman indicating that builders are to reduce house-prices by £120 because of the reduction in S.E.T. Will the right hon. Gentleman help his hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) by arranging that?

I am not sure that I entirely follow the drift of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations for a settlement of the Anguillan problem.

Negotiations are continuing in the search for a settlement. Her Majesty's Government have sought hard to secure an agreed solution, but the present unsatisfactory position cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

In view of the anxieties of the Anguillan people, will the Minister tell us when a solution is likely to come about?

I understand that anxiety. It is my desire that the problem should be resolved in the near future, but it has proved very difficult and intractable. I hope that it will not be long before I am in a position to make a statement.

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

I have at present nothing to add to the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 18th March. The next Ministerial negotiating meeting will be on 11th and 12th May.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Does this mean that there has been no progress in the negotiations in one month? Now that the Common Market in its latest publication has stressed that the economic and political unions are two sides of the same coin, is it not time that the Government recognised this and brought the question of the direction of political unity into the negotiations? It would be very unwise to take this country in without being absolutely clear where we are going politically.

The last Ministerial meeting was held in March. It was always planned to hold the next Ministerial meeting in May. Political matters are not for the negotiations in Brussels.

Will the Minister give the House a clear undertaking that there will be no nuclear offer to France in exchange for her support for Britain's entry into the Common Market?

While no subject will or should be taboo between ourselves and the French, we have no present plans to put to the French concerning any joint nuclear force.

Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that we all recognise that the urgent thing to do is to conclude the Brussels negotiations for membership of the Community? At the same time, will he take note of the helpful suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and make our partners aware of the importance of promoting political unity as swiftly as may be?

I do not think that that was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), but I have noted the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).

What proposals have been put by the Government to the Common Market negotiators for safeguarding the British inshore fishing industry?

We have made it quite plain to our partners that the British Government reserve their position regarding the fishing regulation which has been passed by the Governments of the Six.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some ambiguity about the extent to which the future rôle of sterling is subject to negotiation in the present discussions in Brussels? Will he take this opportunity to make clear to the House the extent to which the future rôle of sterling is a subject for the negotiations and as such is welcomed by the British Government?

Capital movements are a subject for discussion in Brussels, but the future rôle of sterling is not a subject for discussion in the Brussels negotiations.

It seems that the terms which Her Majesty's Government have suggested as the price we would be prepared to pay for entry are obviously completely unacceptable to the Six. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what further concessions, and their costs, we are prepared to make in order to get in?

I do not know from where the right hon. Gentleman has formed the view that our suggestions are totally unacceptable.

Ask the French.

The hon. Gentleman should know that we are negotiating with six countries, not just the French. We hope to make significant progress at the meeting to be held next month between my right hon. and learned Friend and Ministers of the Six in Brussels.

The Minister knows that there are sharp differences in this House concerning the proposal to introduce a value-added tax in this country. Will the Minister tell us what kind of value-added tax we shall have to introduce if we join the Common Market and whether he regards this as a matter for negotiation before entry?

The proposal for a value-added tax was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech. We have informed the Community that the five-year transitional period for which we had previously asked will not now be necessary for the introduction of a value-added tax. It will be for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to answer any detailed questions of the kind put to me by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he will not discuss with the Foreign Ministers of Norway and Denmark the desirability of adopting a common attitude should any of the three Governments be unable to get a parliamentary majority for entry into the European Economic Community.

Because the question of obtaining a parliamentary majority for its entry is a matter for each of the countries concerned to resolve.

Is there not a serious possibility of Denmark and Norway being unable to secure adequate parliamentary majorities for entry, for a variety of reasons, including entrenched clauses in the constitution of at least one of those countries? Would not this entail the distinct possibility of Britain's entering the community with all her E.F.T.A. partners outside and with a consequential reimposition of trade barriers between Britain and E.F.T.A.?

The fears expressed in the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary are unlikely to materialise. We in the United Kingdom regularly exchange information with our E.F.T.A. partners about the progress of our and their negotiations with the E.E.C. There is general agreement that these arrangements are working well. There are further opportunities for discussions at the meetings of the E.F.T.A. Council at both official and Ministerial level. The next E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council meeting will be held in May at Reykjavik.

Does my hon. Friend recall the Prime Minister's pledge that Britain would not sign the Treaty of Rome without the wholehearted consent of the British people? How will such consultation with the British people take place?

The Government have made it plain on many occasions that the decision will be taken by Parliament.

If the Government are to discuss with any foreign Government, will the Minister assure us that the Government will also discuss with the Irish Government who, after all, are one of the four applicants?

As I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), we are having discussions with all our E.F.T.A. partners, so the hon. Gentleman is correct.

Although we all recognise that the final decision will have to be taken by Parliament, is it not recognised that it would be absolutely wrong for Britain to enter the Common Market without the full-hearted support of the people? How do the Government intend to test the full-hearted support of the people? Is my hon. Friend aware that Norway, which is a very similar parliamentary democracy to ours, is to have a consultative referendum before the vote in the Norwegian Parliament? Why cannot we do the same?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has made it clear in the House on many occasions since the negotiations have started, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it equally clear, that we shall put the terms that we obtain at Brussels before Parliament and await its approval.

Is the Minister saying that the Government would be prepared to enter the Common Market even if Norway and Denmark did not?

I have said that we are closely consulting our friends in E.F.T.A., and the Irish Republic, and we shall continue to consult them before the final decision is taken regarding the terms that we obtain at Brussels and before they are put before the House.

My hon. Friend said that when the Government know the terms they will put them before Parliament. Surely this is not true. Is not the true position that the Government will put the terms before Parliament only if the Government consider that the terms are worth considering as a basis on which to take us in? Is there not a difference?

It is clear that we should ask the House to approve only terms which we considered were right and suitable for Britain.

The Minister has mentioned consultation with our E.F.T.A. partners. Will he give a definite assurance that on 15th May we shall not take any action or give any pledges that can be contrary to the interests of our E.F.T.A. partners? If not, will he give the reasons why he is unable to give such an assurance?

We hope to make good progress at the meeting in Brussels in May. The achievement of a wider economic integration in Europe is one of the basic objectives of the E.F.T.A. and the E.E.C. It is generally agreed that it is in nobody's interest to erect fresh trade barriers in Europe. We hope that the arrangements which E.F.T.A. members are seeking to make with the Community will reflect this.

As my hon. Friend says that the decision is to be made by Parliament, and as the Treaty of Rome is of indefinite duration, what will become of our constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successor?

The Government's attitude to the question which my hon. Friend asked was clearly spelled out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy during the debate in January.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action has been taken by Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations concerning the continued imprisonment of 30 Namibians by a South African court purporting to exercise jurisdiction in Namibia in February, 1968.

None, Sir.

That is an utterly disgraceful answer. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of people in this territory are awaiting trial? Unlike the United States Government, who were represented at the International Court at The Hague which inquired into this problem, why are Her Majesty's Government not represented? Are they shrugging off their entire responsibilities?

No. We do not shrug off our responsibilities in the least. We are awaiting the outcome of the consideration of the International Court of Justice of the position of South West Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further requests he has now received from the South African Government for the supply of arms.

No new request has been received beyond that dealt with in the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Members for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) and Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) on 22nd February.—[Vol. 812, c. 34–42.]

Has there been no informal, of not formal, approach by South Africa? Is there nothing in the Press suggestion that the South African Government have requested us to sell them six frigates? Why does not the right hon. Gentleman at least assert a degree of self-respect and say categorically that the British Government will not entertain this application?

The hon. Gentleman seems to assume that I take responsibility for what is said in the Press. I do not. Nor is there any truth in the general statements which have been appearing in the Press about this matter. I have stated the British position precisely. I stated it precisely in the debate in the House on 3rd March, and our position remains exactly as it was then.

Considering the present levels of unemployment in this country, would not some South African orders for ships, aircraft and equipment be very welcome to our workers, besides being in the interests of the defence of the free world?

I accept that the question of employment is very important. However, the position regarding supply to South Africa is precisely as I stated it in the debate, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Will Government policy in this matter be determined by the nature of requests for arms from South Africa, or have the Government made up their mind on the principle involved?

We stated our position on the principle as long ago as July, when my right hon. Friend stated it in the House. There has been no change at all in that position. It remains precisely as it was stated, and I spelt it out clearly in the debate last month. I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there has been no formal or informal approach by the South African Government for the purchase of frigates from the British Government?

There has been no approach for frigates. There has been —this has been stated in previous answers —a visit to Europe by a team, but no specific request has been made to us for frigates.

May we have an assurance that this matter has not been raised in any way either with officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department or with the Ministry of Defence?

I have made it clear that no such specific request has been made. If or when one is made, the necessary decisions will be taken and the House informed. We have made the position abundantly clear in regard to our legal obligations. It was pointed out in the debate last month, when this matter was under discussion, that we reserved our right to supply, and there has been no change in that position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position on the negotiations for the conclusion of a Treaty on Chemical and Biological Warfare at Geneva.

There has been a welcome development in these negotiations. On 30th March the Soviet Government indicated their readiness to seek agreement on the basis which this country has been advocating since 1968. We hope there will now be rapid progress towards such agreement.

Whereas we can applaud the American decision to destroy stockpiles of biological weapons, do not events in China make it doubly urgent to get some agreement on chemical weapons?

Yes, certainly, and the fact that progress is being made on biological weapons makes us hope that it will be possible to advance to arrangements covering chemicals. There is no question of derogation in regard to chemicals. We felt that it was better to make progress on the biological side first, and that was the attitude of the Labour Government, with which we agree.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a substantial step forward and is something for which he and his predecessors have been seeking for some time? Acceptance of the British technical position that the two sections of this important and difficult problem should be separated, at least for the first phase, augurs well for the future.

I agree. It is a difficult problem. We are at present studying the Soviet proposals. I hope that it will now be possible to make progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to raise at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations the question of the recognition of human rights in the Southern Sudan.

The Human Rights Commission ended its annual session last month and will not meet again until next year. The matter was drawn to the attention of the Commission at its last session by a representative of the Anti-Slavery Society.

is it in the Government's mind to accept responsibility for the observance of human rights overseas? If not, do they take that view because they doubt the existence of evidence of infringement or because of some less overworked excuse?

It is not that we doubt it but that we are anxious to find the best way to make progress on these matters. It is not necessarily the case that the best progress can always be made by seeking to raise such issues specifically at governmental level in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the talks with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Exploratory exchanges are continuing but I cannot at present add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) on 22nd March. —[Vol. 814, c. 15–16.]

As Mr. Smith has already said that the five principles are of no significance now and are irrelevant, and as Her Majesty's Government are committed to negotiating only on the basis of those five principles, what is the use of continuing with this meaningless charade? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if these talks fail, as they are bound to do, we shall maintain the full ferocity of our sanctions policy?

I cannot comment on Press reports of what Mr. Smith or anybody else has said. These exploratory discussions will continue as long as there is a possibility of progress being made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us very simply whether the Government intend to stick to those five principles?

Yes, Sir.

First, is my right hon. Friend sure that there are properly qualified people at our embassy in South Africa to deal with these very important talks? Second, is my right hon. Friend aware that Rhodesia is at the moment about the only State in Africa with nobody detained under emergency powers?

We have full confidence in our ambassador and his staff to deal with these matters. I cannot comment on the matter raised in the second half of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, as that takes us into a wider field.

During the period during which exploratory talks are taking place, are the Government continuing to report suspected breaches of sanctions to the United Nations?

These reports have been continuing up to the present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what request he has now received from the Turkish Government for discussions on bilateral assistance for Turkish farmers to transfer to cash crops, other than cannabis; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 22nd March.—[Vol. 814, c. 29.]

Is it not the view of many who have studied the international traffic in drugs, including members of the International Narcotics Committee and including Senator Alan Cranston and his colleagues in the United States Congress, that something must be done about the source of drugs? If the Government are serious in their intention to do something about what is generally recognised to be a very wide drugs problem, is it not up to them to tackle the problem at the source, namely, by helping Turkey and other countries of origin to do something about it?

I assured the hon. Gentleman three weeks ago that we are ready to help the Turkish Government if they want us to do so. The problem of crop diversification must be a matter for the Turkish Government. Our interference unwanted would be just about as unpopular in Turkey as Turkish interference would be in our affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of difficulties being encountered by children of Commonwealth immigrants when school authorities seek to include them in Collective Passports; and whether he will take steps to ease these problems.

I am aware of these difficulties, but we are bound by international agreement to include only children who are United Kingdom nationals in collective passports issued in this country.

Is the Minister aware that these difficulties have given rise to great concern, because they have at any rate given the impression of racial discrimination taking place in schools among pupils? May not one of the difficulties well be a failure to explain which formalities are required? If the convention is creating special difficulties, is it not possible to look at the terms of the convention with a view to advocating a review if it be necessary?

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled this Question so that, if it is felt that such discrimination is taking place, I can refute it, because such a feeling is entirely unfounded. This is an international arrangement which was introduced specifically to try to help groups of young people for travel purposes. It is a fairly complicated arrangement, and to get agreement a good deal of discussion in the Council of Europe was involved. It would be difficult to get alterations made to the convention, but there is provision for children who have subsequently qualified for United Kingdom citizenship to be brought within the terms of a collective passport so long as proper notice is given. There is a four-week period of notice. Generally speaking, the arrangement works reasonably satisfactorily.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has rightly said that this matter has caused considerable trouble in West Ham, East Ham and the London Borough of Newham. Will the Minister have an investigation made to ensure that these problems do not occur in other areas, because there has been an outcry in the areas I mentioned?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. I looked into this closely to see whether we could help. I wish that I could help, but there are difficulties. I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that in the case which I believe he has in mind it was possible for the three Indian children concerned to be brought within the terms of the collective passport, because they had acquired British citizenship. Therefore, it was possible to clear that case up. It is also possible to clear up many other cases.

Would the Minister of State see whether there is any room for better liaison between his Department and the Home Office in this matter? When the particular case to which my hon. Friend referred arose, it was necessary to communicate with both Departments. There was, if I may say so, a good deal of apparent passing of the buck. Would the right hon. Gentleman look at this possibility of a better link between the Departments?

I will consider the matter in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said. Normally there is very close liaison, but I will certainly follow up the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many letters he has received since 1st January on investment in industry.

Approximately 75.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. In the light of today's announcement and the deplorable level of unemployment, would he not now think that the time is ripe to urge his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to stimulate the economy, thus providing the only true base from which investment can spring, and at the same time create fresh employment opportunities?

It is true that the Government inherited a very tight liquidity position in industry which led to a flattening out of investment, but I believe that the October measures, coupled with the very encouraging Budget which my right hon. Friend produced, will lead to a buoyancy in investment.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that if the Budgetary measures to stimulate investment prove inadequate, he will during the next financial year take such extra measures as may be necessary without waiting for the 1972 Budget?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will watch the situation, but it must be realised that the Government are not the only party who can contribute towards industrial buoyancy. A moderation of wage pressure together with further initiatives by business could all play their part in helping.

Would not the greatest contribution that the Government could make be to withdraw the Bill abolishing investment grants which was so misguidedly introduced before Parliament and which will reduce investment in those areas where it is most needed?

It is not investment of itself which is good. It is investment which leads to profitable and successful enterprise, which is the reason for the Government's Bill.

Bearing in mind the distressingly high unemployment in the North-East, and in development areas in general, would the hon. Gentleman consider allowing firms already in development areas desirous of expanding to have the same benefits as are given to new firms coming into the development areas?

The hon. Gentleman knows that existing firms in development areas are allowed free depreciation, which is a very great advantage. Once industry moves into a profitable phase, this is something that they will be pleased to have and it will help greatly.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now seek to make an official visit to France.

I have been asked to reply.

I thank the Minister for that reply. I recognise that this is clearly a delicate matter, but would he nevertheless agree that a meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of France should take place before any decision about entry to the E.E.C. is taken, in order clearly to dramatise both the importance and the detail of Britain's application to join the E.E.C.?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 11th February that he has indicated to the French Prime Minister that he would be very welcome to come here whenever he is able to do so. There are no specific plans at the present time for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have discussions with the French President.

During the absence of such an official plan, would my hon. Friend nevertheless arrange for the Prime Minister to send a telegram today to President Pompidou underlining categorically the assurance which was given from the Government Front Bench by him earlier this afternoon that the rôle of sterling was not a subject for negotiations at the Common Market at Brussels?

I do not think that such a telegram is necessary.

Quite apart from the question of the E.E.C., would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is now the time for some sort of comparing of notes between the British and French Governments about a common approach to China, in view of the recent developments in that country?

I am very interested in the hon. Gentleman's question, but I hardly feel that it comes within the Question which has been put to me.

In view of the likelihood that the Common Market negotiations might break down, and the extreme importance of Anglo-French relations, as well as the great love which this country has for France, would my hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to get over to France as soon as he possibly can? We want to see Anglo-French relations maintain the high level at which they have always been kept.

I am not sure where my hon. Friend obtained the idea that the negotiations might break down. No great questions of principle remain between the six countries who are members of the E.E.C. and ourselves. What is important is that no one should build up into a crisis or a matter of principle what are primarily transitional problems.

In reply to an earlier supplementary question, the hon. Gentleman said that the Prime Minister had extended a warm welcome to the President of France to pay an early visit to this country. Could he tell us what kind of reply he received?

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, or perhaps it was my fault. I said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated to the French Prime Minister—not the French President—that he would be welcome to come here if he is able to do so.

The acting Prime Minister said a moment ago that nothing is likely to hold up negotiations to our getting into E.E.C. Has he not seen the Press today in which it is stated categorically that the French are demanding—not asking but demanding—that we shall reveal to them the secrets of our nuclear weapons which we get from America, and the transfer of which is banned under the McMahon Act, and that unless we give them that information they will not agree to negotiate on our entry into E.E.C.? Surely this is a matter which the Prime Minister ought to go to France to discuss with the Prime Minister of France and the President of France.

I am not responsible for what the Press writes. Am I now to expect that the hon. Gentleman has plans to become acting Leader of the Opposition?

Following my hon. Friend's statement that there is nothing outstanding between the other countries and ourselves in our application to enter the European Economic Community, may I ask him whether he realises that at the moment we are all very anxious about the fishing industry? Could he, therefore, as there seems to be a little time to spare in Question Time, ask the Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on the fishing industry?

The point I made was not that no matters were outstanding but that no great questions of principle remained in connection with the negotiations in Brussels.