asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent talks in Peking between the British Chargé d'Affaires and Mr. Chou En-lai.

The interview on 2nd March was at the request of the Chinese Prime Minister. The fact that it took place is a further indication of a slow but welcome improvement in our relations over the past year.

As China and America are now publicly talking sense, would our country do the same on this matter, and would the Government, therefore, take three steps towards promoting peace and trade—first of all, arrange a Ministerial visit; secondly, appoint an ambassador to Peking; and, thirdly, take the initiative at the United Nations for the admission of China on a simple majority?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, we have long sought to have an ambassador in Peking, because that would enable us to talk even greater sense, perhaps, than we do. As for the Ministerial visit, I am always willing to consider it at some future date. On the other matter I think we had better wait a little longer.

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

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

I have at present nothing to add to my statement of 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Since the negotiations have run into some difficulties—through no fault of my right hon. and learned Friend, whose skill and pertinacity are well known—would the Government consider holding a summit meeting between the Prime Minister and the President of France to discuss such matters as defence and sterling, which are not on the agenda of the negotiations but are, I think, relevant to them?

Certainly there are no present plans for a meeting such as my hon. Friend suggests. I think the negotiations must be settled in Brussels. I do not think my hon. Friend is right in saying that they have run into difficulties—in this sense, that there is no reason to be surprised that there are many critical matters now taking some time to resolve. I am sure the whole House will agree that it is much better to get the right solution slowly than the wrong solution quickly.

But if defence and sterling have to be on the agenda, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) wishes—

No, I did not say that.

Well, I understood my hon. Friend to say that, but I will withdraw that, and put the question like this. As the purpose behind going in is very largely political, is it not time that the future political structure of Europe was added to the agenda in the negotiations? At the same time, if the Community is to be enlarged, would my right hon. and learned Friend at some time take steps to see that the official language to be used is English?

Certainly, the political advantages of enlargement are overwhelming, but that is not a subject for discussion in the negotiations. If we became a member of an enlarged community, English would be an official language.

rose—

Order. There are 29 other Questions on the Order Paper dealing with the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that United Kingdom imports of butter from New Zealand have increased from an annual average of 12,000 tons in 1900 to 1909 to 119,000 tons in 1930 to 1939 and 168,000 tons in 1961 to 1970; and, in view of this, if he will seek permanent arrangements for the continuation of this trade in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.

We have tabled proposals on New Zealand dairy products asking for some form of continuing arrangement, subject to review.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that if continuing arrangements are not obtained the Government will not sign the Treaty of Rome?

My hon. Friend would be wise to await the outcome of negotiations, and then he can make his decision.

During previous negotiations great fears on this score were expressed because of what was then called the "butter mountain"; that is to say, a permanent surplus of butter in the Community. What is now the position of the so-called "butter mountain"?

It is certainly much smaller than it was. There has actually been a shortage of butter in some countries. I imagine that the position will change considerably over the years, and there is a great weight of opinion which believes that as the agricultural structure of the Community changes in years to come there will be a great demand for dairy products from New Zealand.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that during the 1962 negotiations the present Prime Minister negotiated special arrangements covering New Zealand? Is he further aware that negotiations to deal with the New Zealand problem which were confined to the transitional period were regarded in many directions as unacceptably insufficient?

We have made it perfectly clear to the Community that, broadly speaking, the problems that remain to be settled in negotiation are transitional problems, except for New Zealand dairy products and sugar from the developing countries of the Commonwealth, which the Community has already agreed with me are special problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Ireland regarding the procedure to be adopted at the conclusion of negotiations with the European Economic Community.

We are in regular consultation with the Government of the Irish Republic, and will continue to consult them as the negotiations proceed.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake that at the conclusion of negotiations the British people will have the same rights as the Irish people to comment upon and, if necessary, to veto any terms offered?

The British people will have the rights which the British people enjoy under the British constitution, and there will be no difficulty about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the benefits Commonwealth Caribbean States may expect in the event of their becoming associated with the European Economic Community under a Yaoundé-type Convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what benefits associated status would bring to the developing Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean if they were to accept offers of association with the European Economic Community.

The precise benefits would depend upon the terms of association when these are negotiated. Associates of the existing Yaoundé Convention enjoy the benefits of a considerable measure of free trade with the Community. They also qualify for aid provisions from the European Economic Community amounting, over the period of the Convention, to 1,000 million United States dollars.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his statement is welcome to the House and to our Commonwealth sugar-producing friends and allies in the Caribbean, who stand to benefit substantially from association, as did the former French overseas territories? In the wider sphere of British membership of the European Economic Community, will not the fact that Britain is playing a major rôle in Europe and, through Europe, in the world, as France has done in recent years, give far greater benefit to other Commonwealth countries?

That is certainly my firm belief and the belief of many people in the Commonwealth. We are still pressing the Community for the repetition of the 1963 Declaration of Intent in respect of the independent developing countries of the Caribbean and certain other developing countries in the Pacific. The West Indies Associated States have already been offered associated status under Part IV.

In view of the great concern in the House about the Caribbean, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us whether the Caribbean Governments have been consulted in the negotiations now taking place, and will he say in detail how we intend to protect the vital interests of the Caribbean?

They are consulted. I have consultations here with representatives of the Caribbean Governments, and many Ministers have visited us here. After every Ministerial meeting I have consultations in Brussels with the High Commissioners. I visited the Caribbean in February. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is a clear understanding between us of what we are seeking to achieve. I cannot go into details on these complex matters of the way in which we are seeking to protect the interests of the Caribbean countries, Mauritius and Fiji especially in respect of sugar.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that sugar is not the only commodity grown in the West Indies? Other commodities will be in real danger unless they are supported by commodity agreements.

It is important that we should get the 1963 Declaration of Intent repeated so that there may be the offer of association, or some other appropriate trading agreement, between the enlarged Community and these countries. I know my hon. Friend is concerned about this. It applies particularly to bananas, where we would seek within association to provide for our traditional suppliers the same treatment as the existing members of the Community accord to their traditional suppliers.

Do the Government intend to press for a revised Yaoundé Convention, including the Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries, and to make a contribution to the European Development Fund on the same lines and of the same dimensions as France and Germany?

I imagine that within an enlarged Community there would be discussions about how we dealt with association in the years beyond 1974 and how we developed new world commodity agreements on a broader basis within the framework of other international agreements. Certainly we would wish to do that. We would be contributing to the European Development Fund on an appropriate basis. As I have said before, we not only would be able to aid our present clients through that fund but could maintain bilateral aid as well where that was appropriate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what change there has recently been in the political aims of the European Economic Community.

None, Sir.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take this opportunity to make it clear that the exaggerated fears about loss of sovereignty resulting from British membership of E.E.C. have no basis in fact?

I believe that they are false arguments. There is no reason for anxiety about that. We should be pooling sovereignty to no greater degree than we have already shown ourselves willing to do in N.A.T.O., Western European Union, the International Monetary Fund and a host of other international treaties.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend appreciate that, quite apart from any further develop- ments in the political context, it is entirely clear to anyone who reads the Treaty of Rome and has the capacity to understand its provisions that membership will involve a loss of sovereignty unprecedented in the history of this country?

I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has the capacity to understand the Treaty, so I am slightly surprised at his comments. I assure him that if we join the enlarged Community at its present stage we shall at every point have the opportunity to determine how far and how fast we are prepared to go in association with the other States, bearing in mind that on all major issues of sovereignty there would have to be a unanimous decision.

If the Minister is right, why will he not agree to an independent investigation of the facts to see which legal gentleman is right, and publish the report? Secondly, will he give an assurance that we on this side of the House will be able to raise whatever questions we wish to raise as we do now, subject only to Mr. Speaker and to the Orders of the House?

In the last few weeks the hon. Gentleman has asked several hundred Questions and we have done our best to answer them. We will continue to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the examination of necessary secondary legislation in the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.

A group consisting of representatives of the applicant countries and the Communities has since September, 1970, been examining the secondary legislation in force in the Community. About 70 per cent. of the instruments in force have been examined, and the technical adaptations to these instruments, which will become necessary in the event of our accession, have been agreed.

Is the Minister able to give the House any guidance as to the amount of secondary legislation which will be required? For example, could he estimate the amount of legislative time that will be available for entirely domestic matters once we accede to the Treaty of Rome, if we do?

There will have to be a discussion in this House in an appropriate form over many of these matters. I cannot say how much time the House will take over it. Much of it may be agreed without difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been received from France about the future of the sterling balances in relation to the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether discussions about the United Kingdom's economic prospects and the future rôle of sterling now form part of the formal negotiations over the United Kingdom's entry to the European Economic Community.

The French Government have made no representations of this kind to Her Majesty's Government. From the outset it has been made clear that economic and financial matters such as those referred to would not form part of the formal negotiations but that they would be discussed in an appropriate forum.

Is it now Government policy to phase out the sterling balances?

We had some discussion of this rather technical matter in the debate in July, and I recommend the hon. Gentleman to look at that.

The Minister will recall that he and the Prime Minister have at all times informed the House that the question of sterling and the political implications involved in our acceptance of the Treaty of Rome would not be matters for discussion during the present negotiations. Can he assure the House that this is still the case?

That is what I have just said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what figure he now considers a reasonable and equitable contribution to the budget of the European Economic Community in the first year of any transitional period of entry for the United Kingdom.

I have nothing at present to add to the statement I made to the House on 16th December.—[Vol. 808, c. 1354–70.]

I expected that to be the answer that I would receive. Would the Minister not agree that in describing the present offer he is reported as having used the words "reasonable and equitable" and Sir Con O'Neill to have used the words "fair and generous"?

I think that on 16th December I said I thought our offer to be fair and reasonable. I also added on that occasion that I thought the Community thought that it was too fair and too reasonable. That of course, is what the negotiations are all about.

As the Government consider that in domestic terms 10 per cent. increases are too high, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman apply the same criteria to any increases negotiated in our contribution to the European budget?

That does not seem to be a very consequential observation.

Whatever figure may be agreed eventually for our contribution, surely it cannot be in the interests of the Community to impose intolerable burdens on our economy.

That is the basis of our argument. It would be a great tragedy if the Community sought to impose upon us such short-term burdens as would deprive us all of the manifest long-term advantages.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what revised estimates he has made of the annual costs of the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Economic Community and of Great Britain's contribution to it.

These matters are under constant review. I made a statement on this subject on 16th December, and the matter was discussed in the debate on 20th and 21st January. But any attempt to quantify the costs of British membership of the Community must depend upon the outcome of the negotiations.—[Vol. 808, c. 1354–6; Vol. 809, c. 1401–12.]

My Question asks not only about the estimates of Britain's contribution but about the estimates of the revised costs of the Community's expenditure on agriculture. I have in mind the fact that the Six met only two or three weeks ago to review prices for this year. Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman no information on that matter?

Certainly the Community has made what I think will be found broadly to be a helpful review in the context of the negotiations, particularly its proposals for carrying forward the restructuring of Europe's agriculture. But what we are concerned about is the budget from 1973 to 1978, and much of the discussion about the size of Britain's possible contribution turns to a large extent on the size and shape of the budget in those years ahead and what our likely receipts might be.

If the advantages of going into the Community cannot be quantified until the terms are known, how can all these European-minded people tell us what the economic advantages are before the terms are known?

No one has any doubts about the advantages. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They are well known and understood in the Community. No one in the Community has doubts about the advantages. I know that there are doubts in this House, and I hope that we shall satisfy them in due course. Certainly we shall do our best. I am afraid that it is impossible to produce estimates of the costs, as distinct from the potential advantages, until we have concluded the negotiations or taken them much further forward.

Why is not the United Kingdom concerned about the size of the Community's budget after 1978?

We are, of course. I referred specifically to 1973 to 1978 because that arose out of the statement on 16th December when we were dealing with the transitional arrangements. But a lot depends on the size and shape of the budget, our receipts from it and what the likely consequences will be. These matters are much better assessed in the later stages of the negotiations.

On the balance of costs, are there not influential voices in the Community which want more of the Community budget spent on non-agricultural purposes? Is there not some benefit to be derived thereby?

The estimates that I have given are based on an estimate of our likely receipts on the basis of the budget as it is today. The Community says that, as it restructures agriculture and as a higher proportion of its budget is devoted to regional and industrial policies, we shall get the higher benefit that we ourselves have suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid the European Economic Community makes available to its associated states.

As the reply is long and detailed, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

While I thank the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether he can say briefly how the effort of the Community in this direction compares with our own?

It is very difficult to make a comparison. Apart from the bilateral aid, there is the aid to the Yaoundé countries and to the associated countries, Greece and Turkey. It is very difficult to compare them briefly. However, the hon. Gentleman may be able to make some comparison when he has read the whole answer.

Is not a strong argument for British membership of the E.E.C. the fact that if we became members we would be in a position to have an aid programme on the level, perhaps, of that of France, which is very much higher than our own?

We shall continue our bilateral programme and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy has said, no doubt we shall be making a contribution to the European Development Fund. The aid programme, anyhow, will be increasing in the years to come.

In view of the fact that nearly all the money in the European Development Fund is distributed to countries with very small populations, is not a factor, though a very small one, against our joining the Community that we would be contributing additional sums for distribution to the very small countries which might be balanced by taking funds away from countries like India with large populations?

I do not agree. Our contribution to the E.D.F. will have to be considered when we have discussions at the end of 1973. I see that our programme to India is likely to be maintained in the future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he will not inform the countries of the Six at the negotiations to be held in Brussels on 11th May that Great Britain can give no definite answer until she has reported the negotiations to be held on 11th May to the European Free Trade Association meetings to be held in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May.

Decisions on the conduct of our negotiations with the European Economic Community must remain the sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government. There will no doubt be a full discussion at the E.F.T.A. meeting of the positions reached by the E.F.T.A. members in their negotiations and discussions with the Community.

We are used to getting these evasive replies, but, since the Minister and the Government have said that they mean to keep our E.F.T.A. partners fully consulted on these matters, why cannot he give an assurance—it is only a question of a few days—that he will come to no decisions on these matters until such time as he has at least reported the conversations and negotiations to our E.F.T.A. partners? Subsequently we would obviously take our own decision, but what harm could there be in a few days' delay?

I have made the position clear. We are constantly in touch with E.F.T.A. representatives in Brussels, and as soon as that meeting is over I shall be going to a meeting in Iceland to talk to E.F.T.A. Ministers. We have consultations all the time, sometimes at Ministerial level and sometimes at official level. There is no difference between us. I hope that the hon. Member fully under- stands that it was one purpose of the Stockholm Treaty—which shaped E.F.T.A.—to bring about an end to the economic division of Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress now made in negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.

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

I have at present nothing to add to my statement of 18th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 1659–62.]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the sooner the negotiations are completed the better, because of the substantial advantages which British membership of the Community will bring to the British Commonwealth and the E.E.C.?

That is certainly our purpose, and we shall go ahead on that basis.

Is it not time that this preposterous fiction that negotiations about sterling are not part of the formal negotiations was abandoned? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not make a statement on this subject—because the negotiations in sterling are so clearly central to the whole negotiations—instead of leaving hon. Members to rely too much on leaks that appear in the Press?

It is not fiction; it is fact.

Is it the expectation of my right hon. and learned Friend that the Government will be in a position to recommend to the House a view one way or the other before we rise in August?

As I have indicated to the House, I hope that we shall make substantial progress at the next round of Ministerial meetings in May. I shall report to the House when that has happened. We can then begin to form a judgment as to how matters are proceeding.

In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said just now about E.F.T.A., will he at least give an assurance that we shall not reach any settlement with the E.E.C. which would involve the re-erection of tariffs between the present members of E.F.T.A.?

That has been a matter of considerable discussion between the members of E.F.T.A. We are not concerned to end the economic division of Europe by erecting new barriers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements in working conditions for Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff based in London have taken place in the last four months.

Some improvements have been made which are designed to make conditions more comfortable for the staff pending a decision on the reconstruction or rebuilding of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

While I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the improvement he has mentioned, may I ask him whether he will recall telling me in December that he was not satisfied with the working conditions of his Department and confirming that the Department is housed in no fewer than 13 different buildings? Has there been any progress particularly in reducing the number of buildings?

I hope that my hon. Friend will know that I am immensely interested in this subject. My interest is to see that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is housed so that the work of diplomacy can be carried on efficiently. It is not possible to do this now as efficiently as I would like, so I would like to get on with the improvements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any further statement to make on the detention of Rudolf Hess.

I have nothing further to add to the reply which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) on 15th March.—[Vol. 813, c. 206.]

For how long will this pointless and cruel detention be allowed to continue? A man who is quite unfit for solitary confinement has been in detention for more than 30 years. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Russians that we do not intend to behave like Nazis and intend to take action ourselves to release Rudolph Hess?

The British Government have made their views known—not only this Government but the previous Government. We share the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend and also expressed in a debate in another place on 25th March, 1970. I am sure my hon. Friend will appreciate that we must have regard to what is the most appropriate time and place to make further representations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the sale of arms to South Africa in addition to Her Majesty's Government's legal obligations.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 19th April.—[Vol. 815, c. 803–4.]

But, in addition to the speculation about the sale of frigates, there have now been reports that the South African Government wish to obtain certain kinds of equipment, like radar and so on. Is there any truth in this speculation? Has any order been received from the South African Government? Has any application been received that they should be allowed to have licences for such equipment?

No, Sir.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of what is now happening in Ceylon, the necessity for the closest association with South Africa within the defence context is re-emphasised and that the wisdom of the policy which he has adopted is increasingly evident?

It is certainly the case that when Mrs. Bandaranaike asked us for immediate help for her Government in relation to insurgency in Ceylon, we were able to produce it from Singapore.

As there is no legal obligation to supply further arms to South Africa, could we be given an undertaking that we will not do so?

There is no legal obligation, but the hon. Gentleman cannot have an undertaking.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will move to obtain an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the juridical status of the ex-Turkish territory in the Sinai Peninsula.

No, Sir. We do not consider that the juridical status of this territory is in doubt.

However that may be, is it not a fact that Sinai was Turkish territory which was attached to Egypt by Great Britain by right of conquest after the First World War because it was convenient to Great Britain at the time? Is there not a very good case for demilitarisation of Sinai and the establishment of whatever régime seems appropriate to avert a renewal of Egyptian aggression against Israel?

Whatever the case about the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, the fact is that this frontier did exist in 1906 and was confirmed by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend in a speech in Harrogate last October as being a sensible dividing line if one had to continue these negotiations further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now give instructions to his officials to make representations to the Soviet Government on behalf of Jewish people detained in Soviet psychiatric hospitals or hospital wards for the mentally sick, because of their efforts to leave the Soviet Union in accordance with the Declaration of Human Rights.

I have every sympathy with persons, whether Jewish or not, who would like to leave the Soviet Union but are prevented from doing so. However, we have no formal standing to make representations to the Soviet Government on their behalf, and I am not persuaded that such representations at present would be helpful to them.

Is the Minister aware that, in addition to an unspecified number of people of many religions who are locked up in mental hospitals because of their wish to leave the Soviet Union, 23 men and women who wanted to leave the Soviet Union for Israel have been con- fined in prison for over seven months awaiting trial on unspecified charges? Is he further aware that these people are named on the Order Paper of this House. Could he not find some way of bringing to the attention of the Soviet authorities the concern felt on all sides of the House?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman on 22nd February how concerned we were. The hon. and learned Gentleman also will have noticed since then, on 2nd March, the British delegate to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in New York has made a statement appealing to the Soviet Union to behave in a different way.

Could my hon. Friend say why we continue to trade with the Soviet Union?

That is rather a different question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will place a copy of Lord Denning's report on the banana trade in the Library of the House for the confidential information of members.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken on the report made to him by Lord Denning about the banana dispute between Jamaica and United Fruit.

The two parties, which I am glad to say have now reached agreement, wish the report to remain confidential. I respect their wishes and, therefore, do not propose to place copies in the Library. We have, of course, been in close touch with the Governments of Jamaica and the Windward Islands about the report.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a little late to take that line in view of the fact that the Govern-men have been releasing little tit-bits of information about the report tactically at opportune moments over the past few weeks? Would he not agree that this country should be taking action to protect our banana supplies from Jamaica and the Windward Islands, irrespective of what the United Fruit Company believes, in the event of our joining the E.E.C.?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has already dealt with that matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have made proposals in Brussels to safeguard the banana trade.

The Under-Secretary has failed to deal substantially with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, the fact that information from the report has been placed in newspapers, according to the best evidence because of Government action on this matter. Since this is happening too often—I do not know whether the Prime Minister was informed about this incident—would he consider the possibility of publishing the report rather than leaking parts of it to newspapers?

I am not responsible for what appears in the newspapers.

Not much! What about Vehicle and General?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of accredited diplomatic and ancillary staff at the Court of St. James's.

The number is 4,473, Sir.

Has my hon. Friend noticed various recent reports, which so far as I know have not been denied, to the effect that 40 per cent. of the Soviet Embassy staff belong to the notorious K.G.B.? Have we really enough secrets to go around? If they are not after military secrets, what precisely are they up to? Does my hon. Friend not think it time to review this whole matter and to suggest to the Soviet Government that they take these people away?

My hon. Friend will be aware that we do not have any limit to the number of diplomats who are accredited here except in one case; that is to say, the Russian Embassy.

Could not the explanation be that the K.G.B. find it much more agreeable to live in London than to live in Moscow?

I do not know how intelligent the K.G.B. is—I understand that they are not very intelligent—but I should have thought that was a good idea.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to make an official visit to Jamaica.

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

In view of the very serious damage to relations with Jamaica that the banana dispute has created and of the further damage which may be done if we join the Common Market and no protection is given, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconsider his answer and consider having further discussions with the Jamaican Government and making the effect of those discussions public so that we can be sure what safeguards are provided for our important banana trade with the West Indies?

I visited Jamaica in February, and I reported to the House about that visit. Since then I have had further discussions with the Jamaican Minister of Trade. We are in close touch about all these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional aid is to be given to the Turks and Caicos Islands, particularly for infrastructure, following the visit of the Minister of State.

An outline development plan is being prepared by consultants under British technical assistance arrangements. This advice will have a bearing on the future level of aid, but in any case I expect to increase it.

As I found on a recent visit to the still dependent territories how much the islanders appreciated my right hon. Friend's visit and his extension of the aid which was started by the previous Government, may I urge my right hon. Friend, on the basis of my own commercial experience, that without permanent sea and air communications there can be no proper development of these islands? Will he redouble his efforts to ensure that there are permanent sea and air communications before long?

My right hon. Friend will be grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. As for the future, I am awaiting the report of the consultants, and, obviously, this is a very important aspect of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in his discussions with the Tanzanian Government with regard to the payment of pensions of former servants of the Zanzibar Government.

The Tanzanian Government have now told me that they recognise no obligation in regard to these pensions, and I am considering the position further in the light of this reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that originally many of these pensions were paid by the British Government, and after independence an agreement was reached with the Sultan handing over responsibility for the payment of pensions? Now, as my right hon. Friend says, that that agreement has been abrogated, surely responsibility must revert to Her Majesty's Government?

Clearly, the obligation rests, as it did after independence, on the present Zanzibar Government. But there is no practical way of compelling the payment of these pensions, so I am considering the situation to see what can be done.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's obvious difference of view on this matter with the Government of Tanzania any relation to the fact that the programme of aid to Tanzania which was supposed to have started last July still appears not to have been begun?

No. It has no connection.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the number of British citizens who are currently engaged in activities abroad sponsored by Voluntary Service Overseas or other similar organisations; and what steps are currently being taken to encourage an increasing number of persons to participate in this work.

About 1,900, Sir. The organisations concerned are continuing their recruiting efforts, which are reaching a wide range of potential volunteers.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the Government should greatly increase the level of their support for this activity not merely because great benefit is conferred upon the recipient but because the experience which the young volunteers gain is extremely worth while?

The main responsibility for finding the volunteers rests on various individual voluntary societies, but the Government will always give support from the point of view of the benefit both to the developing countries and to the volunteers.

As the combined number of overseas aid students is 25,000, does my right hon. Friend not think that Great Britain is playing a great part in sending 1,900?

I entirely accept my hon. Friend's remark.

While I endorse the tributes which have been made to this excellent work, may I ask the Minister to take this opportunity of denying Press reports to the effect that the demand for these volunteers has considerably decreased?

It has not decreased in general. Greater emphasis is now put, probably rightly, on the need for graduates and specialised volunteers, and they now fill the larger proportion of the total.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have yet decided on the measures to be taken to encourage private investment in the developing countries.

The Government's decisions are described in a White Paper that is being published today. They include the introduction of a scheme for insuring overseas investment against noncommercial risks, and various proposals for using official aid in support of private investment.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on adopting a policy which has been urged on successive Governments by some hon. Members for many years.

Questions relating to the investment insurance scheme should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who will be concerned in the next few weeks with working out the precise details.

Does the Minister agree that although these proposals might be useful in stimulating private investment, this will still fluctuate, for reasons outside the Government's control, that they are no substitute whatever for meeting the target for official aid approved by the United Nations, and that we cannot guarantee to reach a total flow of at least 1 per cent. of G.N.P. until we reach the target for official aid of 0·7 per cent. of G.N.P.?

As the right hon. Gentleman will see when he reads the White Paper, the proposals are directed to increasing the flow of private investment. That in itself must be good, and I think he would support it. Questions about the size of the official aid programme can be tabled, and I shall do my best to answer them.

Is not the important thing to increase the flow of aid, which the Government's measures are intended to do, and, all things being equal, is it not more desirable to have this flow from private rather than from public sources?

My view is that both sources are important and that one can do things which the other cannot.

Will the Minister explain why on this important White Paper, which contains at least two or three new policy proposals, one of which we very much welcome—the proposal for investment insurance is sensible; as he knows, it was under study in our time, but the others are distinctly controversial—he has not chosen to make a statement so that we can question him thoroughly, and will he indicate to the Leader of the House that this is an urgent reason for a debate on these matters?

Order. That is not good enough. The right hon. Lady's question must be fairly brief.

If I may continue to put my second question to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask by what criteria the developing countries will be defined? Will the countries be those to which we already give aid, or will the criteria be the generally internationally accepted criteria according to the level of income, which would mean that we could be giving pre-investment help to private investment in Greece and Spain?

The length of the right hon. Lady's question has demonstrated that there should be an opportunity of debating this matter, perhaps on the Adjournment one night, when I should be delighted to give a reply. My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council will no doubt have heard, or will read, her question and will make his decision.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the education allowance for those in the Foreign Service is substantially higher than for members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service; and if he will now bring the allowance for the latter into line with the former.

Greater help is given to members of the Diplomatic Service in educating their children because members of the Overseas Civil Service normally spend longer periods in one place.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the increasing fees which have to be paid for boarding school education in this country lead to a great deal of unhappiness between members of different services serving in the same territory for some period?

I understand the difficulty of increasing school fees. Many people are affected by them. The difference arises from the Plowden Report, which made a distinction between the Diplomatic Service, on the one side, and the Overseas Civil Service, on the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future aid talks with Pakistan; and whether he will consult with other aid donors so as to make further aid dependent upon a cease-fire in East Pakistan.

We should normally have had talks with the Pakistan Government and other aid donors at a meeting of the Pakistan Consortium in July. As it is, we shall have consultations with other donors before then, and the conditions for further aid will certainly be considered.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members would normally oppose the use of our aid programme to impose political conditions upon a recipient country? Nevertheless, if the conditions in East Pakistan are so appalling, this is an exceptional case. In view of the thousands of people who have been slaughtered and the imminent threat of famine in East Pakistan, will the Government consider consulting the other aid donors to impose some basic minimum conditions on the Pakistan Government before fresh aid pledges are made?

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has announced, we are ready to participate in any international effort for relief in East Pakistan if asked to do so. As I have already said this afternoon, we are ready, and, indeed, we have plans, to consult the other donors about conditions of future aid as soon as we can.

Will my right hon. Friend inform me whether the aid programme was maintained throughout the period of the Nigerian Civil War? If so, as I believe, surely it is appropriate, in view of the necessity for rehabilitation in the eastern wing of Pakistan and the severe overstrain on the economy of West Pakistan to maintain the aid programme?

We are anxious to maintain the aid programme if we can, but the conditions on which we do so must be resolved.

Does the Minister agree that there is a distinction between a relief programme to deal with famine and other consequences which no one would wish to interrupt or interfere with, and the more normal economic investment programme which in this case is probably a suitable vehicle for making it clear to the Pakistan Government that we want to see proper changes in East Bengal and in the political situation there as a condition for continuing it?

I appreciate the distinction between relief and other programmes. We have a programme which we were in the process of implementing in East Pakistan, and I should like to continue that programme in conjunction with other donors and the World Bank as soon as possible.

Will the Minister consider two points? The first is that there is probably an urgent need for relief in India where the refugees from East Pakistan have been going so recently. Will he, therefore, consider the need for an immediate relief operation there? Secondly, will he give details, perhaps in the OFFICIAL REPORT, Of the precise projects at present under way in East and West Pakistan respectively, because in the light of the very much lower standard of living and G.N.P. in East Pakistan there are many on this side of the House who would wish us to concentrate on projects in East Pakistan?

I shall certainly do my best to provide the information for which the right hon. Lady has asked.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of his review of the question of arms contracts with Pakistan.

I have reviewed the position, which is as I informed the House on 29th March. No contracts have been signed since 1967 with the exception of one for refitting a naval vessel and another for radar equipment. There is none in prospect.—[Vol. 814, c. 1149.]

Although Britain is a small supplier of arms to Pakistan, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that when a Government use arms that they have acquired from other nations for external defence in the appalling way in which the Government of Pakistan did against their own people, surely it is the concern of all nations in the arms-supplying business? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Britain should have reacted immediately in far stronger terms to what happened in East Pakistan than she did?

We reacted very quickly to the horrible events that took place in Pakistan—but these events do take place in civil wars. As for the hon. Member's Question, I have reviewed the position. There are not outstanding contracts of any significance. I shall keep the matter under review, but I see no reason to alter Her Majesty's Government's policy now.

Has my right hon. Friend been in contact with the military or Ministerial representatives of Pakistan in the course of the present S.E.A.T.O. conference? As Pakistan is a S.E.A.T.O. ally of ours, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the military capability of Pakistan, which is a linchpin of that alliance, is maintained as far as possible?

Pakistan is a S.E.A.T.O. ally, as my hon. Friend says. The Question referred to whether I have reviewed the questions of arms contracts to Pakistan. The answer is "Yes", and I am satisfied that we need not change our policy now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recall Lord Cromer, Her Majesty's Ambassador to the United States of America.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members found the maiden speech of Her Majesty's Government's Ambassador at the Press Club in Washington thoroughly offensive and partisan—matched only by the odious statement of his wife that saving face means so much more to an Asian than does life? Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House that he proposes to do nothing about this offensive conduct?

I repudiate the suggestion that Lord Cromer has been indulging in party political propaganda. What is more, I should have thought that hon. Members opposite would have been more generous in their recognition of the wisdom and discretion which Lord Cromer was always willing to give them when they were in office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of us very much resent an attack of this sort on a superlatively able ambassador, and that the only thing that can ever be urged against Lord Cromer is that his prestige and skill as Governor of the Bank of England saved the Labour Government in 1965?

Yes.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not taken the measure of this matter, and that the supplementary question asked by his right hon. Friend shows how partisan a person Lord Cromer is thought to be by hon. Members opposite? Does the right hon. Gentleman further realise that after these remarks by Lord Cromer and his wife it will be impossible for anyone on this side of the House, or for our supporters in this country, to regard him as representative of the country rather than of the Conservative Party?

I regard that as totally unworthy of the right hon. Gentleman. Lord Cromer is a representative of the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and happily so, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Government of Canada to secure no less favourable treatment for United Kingdom citizens in respect of terms and conditions of entry, registration, residence, employment, settlement and voting rights than are accorded to Canadian citizens in the United Kingdom.

None, Sir. We accept that all sovereign countries, like ourselves, have the sole right to determine whom they should admit and on what terms.

I am delighted to have my hon. Friend's reaffirmation of the right of each sovereign independent country of the Commonwealth to settle its own immigration policies. Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that Britain bears favourable comparison not only with Canada but with every other country in terms of its treatment of immigrants not only before they come here but also after they have arrived here?

That is so. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making it clear.

If there is to be parity between British and Canadian citizens in these matters, can the hon. Gentleman say what group of citizens he is suggesting the Canadian Government should discriminate against in the same way as French-Canadian citizens will be discriminated against by this Government under the patrial Clause of the Immigration Bill?