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

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on recent negotiations towards seeking entry to the European Economic Community.

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

I hope to make a statement on last week's negotiating meetings in Brussels later today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations towards the protection of British inshore fishing interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in clarifying the position of fisheries in negotiations for entry into the Common Market.

Exploratory contacts, without prejudice to our position generally on the common fisheries policy of the Community, have continued with the Commission of the European Economic Community. Pending completion of the examination of the implications of this policy, Her Majesty's Government continue to reserve their position.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the House is getting tired of these rather vague answers? Can he give now a specific assurance that the Government will not sign on the dotted line before we get adequate safeguards for our inshore fishing fleet?

We shall certainly raise this matter at the appropriate time in the negotiations. One difficulty is that certain details of the policy have not yet even been settled by the Community itself. There is a need for clarification on quite a number of matters. The hon. Gentleman can be quite satisfied that this is not a matter which will go by default.

Is not the position exactly the same as indicated in the answers given by the Minister to several recent Questions from both sides of the House; namely, that in regard to any agreements reached before our possible entry to the Common Market Her Majesty's Government reserve their position absolutely both in regard to conservation and otherwise?

Sometimes people say that these negotiations are going too quickly and urge us to be careful. We have to get the right solutions and to negotiate in a fair and reasonable way. Regarding the fisheries regulations, I assure the House that we have made it perfectly clear that, as far as we can now judge, they would be detrimental to our interests, and these matters must be taken up before we enter the Community.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark mean that he agrees with the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House that the common fisheries policy, as at present defined, would be quite unacceptable to the British people and Her Majesty's Government? Further, does he expect to reach a solution on this problem before the Summer Recess, or is it likely to take until rather later in the year?

I should not like to give any guarantee about the timing of it. Certainly it has to be done. I have never gone beyond saying that we would break the back of the negotiations by the end of the summer. There will be some matters still to be cleared up. This is one of them. I have represented very strongly to the Community, as have the other applicants, that a fisheries policy which may have been quite appropriate for the Community of Six is not appropriate for a Community of Ten in which the new applicants would represent 60 per cent. of the fishing interests.

I fully understand the impossibility of my right hon. and learned Friend answering the sort of questions which he has just been asked, but would he bear in mind that in Dorset, and probably in all the coastal regions of England, there is alarm and apprehension about this aspect of the policy, possibly exceeding that about any other question in the negotiations?

The point is that on many of these matters of negotiation a lot of people are affected, and we deal with matters, first with one and then with another, to try to obtain a fair and reasonable settlement. I have no doubt of the strength of feelings on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common- wealth Affairs when he now expects to have completed the main body of negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

There is an evident desire on the part of the Community to carry the negotiations forward rapidly. There will be a further ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. In the present climate I remain confident that we shall complete the main body of the negotiations by the summer.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the great satisfaction felt by many of us at the progress of the talks? Would he not agree that the major issue now outstanding on which progress has not been made is that of New Zealand, and will he make every effort to provide for New Zealand the same kind of help as he has promised to provide? Will he ensure that those who believe that we would leave New Zealand in the lurch will be proved wrong?

I think that we can say, "So far, so good." But there remain a number of important issues still to be settled. I have always resisted trying to have a list of priorities among all the matters to be raised. In the House, in the country or in the Community I think that no one doubts how strongly we feel about the need to provide adequate protection for New Zealand dairy products.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is the unanimous view on this side of the House, shared, I believe, by many hon. Members of the Conservative Party, that there should be adequate time for consideration of the terms when they are finally revealed, and that it would be quite improper for the Government to seek a decision of the House until several months have elapsed after the publication of the terms?

I do not think that there has ever been any dispute about that. I hope that fairly shortly we shall be able to assess the main body of the terms, and, therefore, we shall be able to assess the situation as it then is. It will be some time before the question of actually signing a document of accession can arise. It would not be before the end of the year.

It is a question not of signing a document, which is a matter for Her Majesty's Government in the last resort, but of when the House is asked to pronounce on the package as a whole. My point—and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can satisfy us on this matter—is that there should be a period of many weeks, even of some months, between the final publication of the terms and the Government requiring the House to take a decision on whether they should be accepted.

Certainly there will have to be adequate time after the publication of the terms before the House is asked to pass a judgment. That is only fair and reasonable.

My right hon. and learned Friend has twice referred to the "main body" of the negotiations. Does he include horticulture and fishing as items in the main body?

As my hon. Friend will see, we have made some progress regarding horticulture in the last round of ministerial meetings. I have said that we shall have to bring up the fisheries question at the appropriate time. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be able to judge in a few weeks how far we have got.

Answer!

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Norwegian Government with a view to establishing a common British and Norwegian negotiating position towards the common fisheries policy of the European Economic Community.

We have had contacts with the Norwegian Government on matters of mutual interest arising out of the European Economic Community common fisheries policy generally.

Do the proposals put forward by the Norwegian Government for the modification of the common fisheries policy have the support of the British Government? Does the speech made by the Foreign Secretary at Aberdeen on Friday mean that the Government will not seek to take Britain into the Common Market without first securing a modification of the common fisheries policy?

We are in contact with the Norwegian Government about their proposals. I do not think that their proposals would be in every respect the same as ours. I am going to Norway next week, and I am sure that this is one of the matters which we shall discuss. As I think I have made perfectly clear, we regard the fisheries regulation as raising very great difficulties for us as it now stands. We have reserved our position, and we shall certainly be dealing with this matter before the question of entering arises.

Is it not absolutely clear from my right hon. and learned Friend's replies to this and previous Questions that the position of Her Majesty's Government is that they will use all their powers of persuasion, diplomacy, and so on, to protect the position of Britain's fishing interests?

We shall use those powers, and I am sure that we shall use them to the necessary effect.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Norway not only is the largest fishing nation in Western Europe but was the only nation not to sign the 1964 Fisheries Convention? She now states that she will not sign the Fisheries Convention of the Common Market. Do we intend to go with her in this matter?

We are in contact with the Norwegian Government, which are responsible for their own policy and their own application. We keep very closely in touch.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of the Sterling Area in the event of a successful conclusion of Her Majesty's Government's negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.

I have nothing to add at present to what I said in the debate on 21st January and in answer to Questions on 22nd March and 26th April.—[Vol. 809, c. 1405–6; Vol. 814, c. 6–8; Vol. 816, c. 9 and 13.]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a categorical assurance that in the course of the negotiations he will not agree to any restriction on our freedom to invest in Australia, New Zealand and the other Commonwealth countries?

We have said that we are prepared to have discussions about the whole range of these matters and then we can see what will emerge. I do not think that I can deal in detail with many of the points raised by my right hon. Friend, which are matters for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall not go beyond what I said on 21st January, and I certainly cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has told the House on a number of occasions.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that it is plainly incompatible to have a free movement of capital within the sterling area and also a free movement of capital within an enlarged European Economic Community. If he cannot go beyond his brief, will he at least make it clear that he rejects the French proposal that we should start repaying the sterling balances at the rate of 5 per cent. a year?

I think that the French proposals in negotiations which are confidential have received many interpretations. Discussions are proceeding at what we consider to be the appropriate place and in the appropriate way. I cannot add to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said about them. We have said all along that we have no objection to having fairly wide ranging discussions about the future rôle of sterling, what might happen to its reserve role, and what might happen to the sterling balances. All those are matters for discussion. Before any arrangements were made, the House would have to be informed. We are at a very preliminary stage. As to the negotiations, we are dealing with the harmonisation of capital, and we have proposals as to how that can be dealt with in the transitional period, but we have not yet reached agreement about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state in£million sterling total European Economic Community expenditure on the agricultural fund in 1966–67 compared with 1970–71, the annual rate of increase in this expenditure and the percentage proportions spent on the guarantee and guidance sections respectively for the five-year period; and what increase in guidance section expenditure has been authorised under the Mansholt Plan.

I am arranging for the statistics called for in answer to the first part of the Question to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I suspect that the figures will reveal a five-fold increase in open-ended expenditure, which is surely preposterously expensive in relation to the achievements of the common agricultural policy in disrupting world food markets and ossifying European agriculture in its present pattern. If the Mansholt Plan leads to larger farm units and greater efficiency, will it not also lead to an increase in surpluses? So why has my right hon. and learned Friend agreed to this policy, and to destroying the present balance of British agriculture between livestock and cropping, without making progressive dismantlement of this policy as at present conceived at least as live an issue as the future of sterling?

My hon. Friend has asked me for some statistics, with which I have provided him. When he sees the statistics, he will see that he is right in saying that the expenditure has increased, for a number of reasons—because the Community has extended the coverage of the C.A.P. gradually and because it is spending more to reduce the surpluses of which my hon. Friend complains.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he made, when formulating his proposal to the Six for the phasing-out of Australia from the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement during the transitional period, of the effect his proposal would have on the export quotas of other countries, in particular developing countries, in view of Article 34 of the International Sugar Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions and conclusions have taken place concerning the importation into the United Kingdom of Australian sugar during the European Economic Community talks.

The Community has agreed that we may continue to meet our obligations under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement to Commonwealth countries, including Australia, until the expiration of the Agreement at the end of 1974. Thereafter we have asked that the Australian sugar quota to our market should be phased out gradually over the remainder of the transitional period.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not answered my Question. Will he make an answer as to the effect on the International Sugar Agreement of phasing out Australia? If Article 34 has to be implemented, will it not cut down the quotas of the developing countries under the International Sugar Agreement and also reduce the supply of cane sugar to our refineries?

As I have already explained, we have completely safeguarded the position until the end of 1974. The International Sugar Agreement comes to an end in 1973. Therefore, the application of Article 34 does not arise.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain why Queensland sugar should be phased out at all?

Our purpose is basically to safeguard the interests of the developing countries of the Commonwealth for the longer term within the framework which we are now negotiating.

As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has so far failed to give any clear answers to the many Questions tabled on this matter, will he make a genuine attempt when he is next at the Dispatch Box to give some indication that he is prepared to defend vital British interests in these negotiations and not act like a weak limpet and give away all our vital interests to our trading competitors in Europe?

Answer!

Would my right hon. and learned Friend say whether, in phasing out Australian sugar, it is intended that this should be replaced by sugar grown in Great Britain or elsewhere in Europe?

I shall be having something to say in my statement later which will be relevant to this. Certainly I would assume that there will be room for expansion of our sugar beet production.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the cost to date of distributing through the Post Office fact sheets on the Common Market.

The Post Office does not make a charge for distributing the leaflets within its own organisation or for issuing them to the public. Its facilities for doing so are, of course, limited.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend think it right to use the Post Office for this sort of tendentious pamphleteering, and, if he does, will he make funds available for a series of pamphlets, equally impartial, from the other standpoint, which I shall be happy to draft for him?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for his offer of help. What we are doing is to put in a convenient form the facts for which the public is asking.

As the Post Office is now supposed to be working on a profit-making basis, is it not the case that every person who contributes to the operation of the Post Office is paying for this distribution whether he likes it or not? Why should the Post Office charge people—when the overwhelming majority are against going into the Common Market—for twisted propaganda in favour of entry?

I do not accept the last assertion. The rest of the question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications.

When my right hon. and learned Friend uses the expression "in a convenient form" to whom is it convenient and for what purpose?

It is convenient for those who read it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to meet his opposite numbers in the Six other than informal meetings with the Council of Ministers.

I am not in a position to announce any plans between now and the next ministerial negotiating meeting on 7th June. But I shall certainly be meeting representatives of Governments of the Six.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, whereas it would be a mistake to import into the negotiations matters which are not directly relevant to them, since the object of the negotiations is to achieve an end which goes beyond the negotiations, there would be every advantage in seeking to maintain or, indeed, to extend the discussions with his opposite numbers on military, political and financial matters?

The discussions can be fairly wide-ranging about the future. What I am concerned to do is to get on with the matters which are within my province at the negotiating table in Brussels.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if his proposals for the United Kingdom percentage contribution to the European Economic Community Budget were based on the assumption of a 10-nation European Economic Community; and what alteration would be needed in his proposals in the event of Denmark and Norway not joining the European Economic Community.

The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes", and to the second part "None".

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm, therefore, that in the event of Britain entering a Community of seven, eight, nine or ten nations, no alteration would be needed in the proposals he has put before the Community as a compromise on this issue?

That is correct.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a highly pessimistic interpretation of the present state of the negotiations to say that there is no real likelihood of the Scandinavian countries, Norway and Denmark, joining if we join?

I think that that is probably a correct assessment of the situation.

Does not my right hon. and learned Friend realise that both Norway and Denmark, and indeed Ireland, are to have a referendum? If the people in those countries turn down the Common Market, those countries will not go in. Why are they less democratic than we are?

They are not less democratic. They have their own constitutional procedures, we have ours, and we shall hold to ours.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the European Economic Community negotiations to agree on satisfactory arrangements to safeguard the interests of the Commonwealth Caribbean sugar producers.

I shall be covering fully the progress in the negotiations on Commonwealth sugar in my statement later this afternoon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to what extent the question of New Zealand's exports of agricultural exports was discussed at the most recent meeting in Brussels on Great Britain's proposed entry to the European Economic Community.

There was no statement from the Community at the meeting on 11th and 12th May, but I raised this matter and reminded the Community of the nature of New Zealand's special problems and of the need to find a suitable solution to them.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend note that even among those of us who most welcome the progress of the last week there is an intense desire to make sure that we do everything possible for our New Zealand friends?

I quite agree.

In view of the recent reply of the French President to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that there can be no sell-out on this issue? New Zealand has supplied the British market for many years and her economy is geared to this country. That is, I think, recognised on both sides of the House. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will remain firm on this issue when he negotiates.

There can be no sell-out on this or anything else.

Following my right hon. and learned Friend's answer to me after he made his previous statement, can he confirm that it is his intention to negotiate for permanent entry of New Zealand dairy produce prior to, and as a precondition of, British entry?

We have never promised anybody a permanent solution for anything. We have said that there must be continuous arrangements subject to an appropriate review.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that as New Zealand stood by us from the other side of the world in two world wars, no advantage to us personally or as a country would be worth letting her down and letting down the economy which she has constructed to fit in with our requirements?

I have not lost a single opportunity to make clear to the Community how strongly we feel about this matter and how essential it is that there should be adequate safeguards for New Zealand and that, in saying this, we are seeking to defend not British interests but the interests of New Zealing.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed the recent debate in the Council of Europe at Strasbourg on this matter in which representatives of both major parties in Britain expressed the view that merely transitional arrangements would not be sufficient and delegates from the continental countries expressed their good will towards and understanding of New Zealand's position?

I am glad that both delegations have made the position clear. That is also the British Government's position. I am also quite clear that there is growing understanding in the Community of what this means and how necessary it is to find the right solution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration he has given to the different trading patterns of Scotland and England in the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Community.

The negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community take fully into account the interests of all regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Scottish exports to the E.E.C. are less than one-half of England's and that the opposite situation exists with regard to exports to E.F.T.A.? Would he not, therefore, regard it as irrational as well as unjust that he should negotiate on behalf of the two countries, and would he arrange for separate Scottish representation under the terms of our Treaty?

I do not think there will be any need for such separate Scottish representation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances overseas workers will be accepted as community workers within the European Economic Community in the event of Great Britain joining.

I would refer the hon. Lady to the Answer given to her on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 177.]

Bearing in mind the length of time in which some of us have tried to get this position clarified, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm whether or not Commonwealth immigrant workers in this country will have to become citizens of Britain before they are acceptable as community workers within E.E.C. in the event of Britain joining?

As I said, all these matters are being clarified in discussion in the Community. I recognise that there are a great many anxieties about this, which we shall have to clear up. The negotiations are lengthy, and they are complicated; I am afraid that we can take only one matter at a time.

Would not the right hon. and learned Gentleman for once this afternoon give a definite answer to one issue which is being raised? I, personally, am not against going into the Common Market, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman continues along this line it is quite clear that the Government are going to get us at all costs into the Community without explaining the position to the country.

The hon. Member need feel no such anxiety. There are discussions going on with the Community in order to ensure that the various difficulties which are mentioned from time to time do not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what relief supplies from the United Kingdom are now reaching the people of East Bengal; and whether the relief organisations there are able to supervise their distribution.

I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement I made in the House on 11th May and to the speech of my right hon. Friend in the debate on 14th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 206–213; Vol. 817, c. 761–767.]

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that he submitted to U Thant that he should make further representations to the Pakistan Government about getting in an international team to assess the needs there. Has U Thant had any response from the Pakistan Government? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the exchange of letters, published on the 13th, indicates a deplorable lack of a sense of urgency on the part of the Pakistan Government?

I have stressed the urgency of this many times. The United Nations and the World Bank are now in touch with the Government of Pakistan. I cannot report anything fresh today, except to say that they are in touch and are, I think, seized of the urgency of the matter.

Can the Secretary of State confirm or deny—I appreciate the difficulty of commenting on Press reports—reports that have appeared in the Press about the Pakistan Government having rejected U Thant's request that the United Nations should distribute aid in East Bengal? Have Her Majesty's Government made any representations on this matter, assuming that these reports are true?

There are two distinct matters. There is the aid that might now be distributed, and in that respect the refugee camps in India are perhaps the first priority. There is then, later, the aid that may be needed if there is severe famine in Pakistan. For the present, the Pakistan Government say that the only distribution of food that may be needed in East Pakistan must be distributed by the army. As for a United Nations team or United Nations distribution, this is still being discussed between U Thant and representatives of the Pakistan Government.

It is universally agreed—the Minister for Overseas Development accepted this on Friday—that there are 4 million people at this time in East Bengal suffering from the disasters caused by the floods last year and liable to die of famine unless stores which are already available in Chittagong are rapidly dis- tributed. Is any progress being made in this matter?

A United Nations representative is now in India considering this matter, at the request of the Indian Government, and I hope that we shall get a recommendation from him quite soon. If necessary, we could, of course, always take further action over the transport of supplies, but this should really be under an international umbrella now, and the right one is the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the safety of British subjects in East Pakistan.

There have been no confirmed reports of injury to any United Kingdom nations in East Pakistan. There was one report of a United Kingdom national said to have been injured whilst crossing the frontier into India but despite investigations there is no confirmation of this.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many thousands of people in this country with relatives in East Pakistan who are unable to find out whether those relatives are alive or dead? Will he set up some system whereby people who are living here, whether British subjects or not, can ascertain whether their families are alive and in good health?

That is one reason for the existence of the Pakistan High Commission in London. Relatives should go to the Pakistan High Commissioner and ask him for advice and advice and information.

Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that in present circumstances it is quite impossible for people from East Bengal to go to the Pakistan High Commission and make inquiries about their relatives? Will he confirm that the services of British diplomatic missions are available to United Kingdom citizens for this purpose and that they will be available to residents in this country who are not United Kingdom citizens?

There should be no difficulty whatever about people from East Pakistan going to the High Commission to inquire whether it has any information about their relatives. I should have thought that it was obvious to hon. Members that the High Commission is much more likely to have it than we are. If people have any difficulty and we can supply information, we shall do so. But the High Commission is the obvious place to go to for this purpose.

Are not the remarks of hon. Members opposite an unwarranted implied slur on the Pakistan High Commissioner? Is it not a fact that the Deputy High Commissioner is a Bengali from East Pakistan?

Yes. I should have thought that the High Commissioner and his staff would do everything they possibly could to try to help Pakistani citizens with information about their relatives. At present, information is extremely difficult to get, by anyone.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has submitted to the Pakistan Aid Consortium for a reassessment of the aid programme to Pakistan following the outbreak of civil war in East Pakistan.

I am not yet in a position to make proposals. Our decisions must await the outcome of consultations now taking place within the framework of the consortium.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he would be prepared to take the initiative in calling for a review by the consortium to ensure that the international aid programmes to Pakistan are not underwriting the suppression of the people of East Pakistan?

I am very anxious that the consortium should reach an agreed view about this, and that is why I am very carefully considering the position we should take before the next meeting of the consortium.

Would not my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgent need which has lasted for many years now to build up funds against flood and storm?

I am taking note of that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the pledging meeting of the aid consortium is scheduled for June? In the debate we had in the House last Friday many views were expressed on this question. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to keep the House fully informed about the progress of negotiations, not only about our offer but the general negotiations of the consortium?

I think I can give the right hon. Lady entire satisfaction on both points.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs what message was sent by him to the Government of Haiti following the death of the late President Duvalier.

None, Sir. In accordance with normal protocol, Her Majesty's Ambassador to Haiti conveyed a message of condolence from Her Majesty The Queen. He also conveyed a message from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware how insensitive it was for the Government to tender such advice, enabling telegrams of condolence to be sent in these circumstances? Are the Government unaware that this man was responsible for the death and imprisonment of thousands of people, most of them innocent? How could the Government have sent a telegram of condolence?

I am aware of the allegations to which the hon. Gentleman refers in the latter part of his supplementary question, but it is for the Haiti Government to answer any accusations. The answer to the first part is that we do not generally indicate our approval or disapproval of foreign regimes by the maintenance or severence of diplomatic relations with them. As far as possible, we seek to remain in diplomatic relations with all countries to enable us to look after the interests of the United Kingdom and its subjects.

We did that with Hitler.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate new discussions in the United Nations to change the terms of the agreement which prevents wives from using joint passports when travelling alone, in view of the recent trend towards greater independence of married women.

No, Sir. Such a passport is issued to the husband, and, although the wife's particulars are included as a matter of convenience for family travel, she is not the joint holder. A married woman has always been able to have her own passport to which her children under 16 can be added.

Does the Minister understand how much resentment is caused by this fuddy-duddy discrimination in these liberated days? Could not he look at this matter again to see whether more equal rights can be granted to holders of joint passports? What is the position of a married woman travelling on a joint passport if her husband dies while both are abroad together? What protection does she have?

I should like notice of the second part of the hon. Lady's question. I will let her know the answer. On the first part of the question, we are tied by our international agreements on this matter. What we do is entirely in accordance with the agreement reached at the 1926 passport conference, and that agreement was reviewed at the 1963 United Nations conference and was not altered.

All these soft-soapy answers are no good to the women of this country, who feel very strongly on the matter. If the international agreements tie us to all sorts of things that we do not want to be tied to, could we not take a different line and get them altered?

I always love giving my hon. Friend soft answers; I hope that I am not giving her soapy answers. My hon. Friend must realise that we are tied by international agreements. But no doubt her words will have been read, and I am grateful to her for letting her views be known to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise the British diplomatic representation at the Holy See from the rank of legation to that of embassy.

Does the Minister realise that that was substantially the same reply as one I received five years ago when I raised this question? Does he realise further that the only other two countries, if that be the right word, represented at the Vatican by a Minister are San Marino and Monaco? Is it not unsuitable that a country of the importance of Great Britain, in a post where precedence and protocol are so important, should not be represented by an ambassador?

Yes; I realise that my reply was somewhat similar to the reply that my hon. Friend received five years ago. There were on 1st January, 1971, 74 diplomatic representatives or posts awaiting new representatives accredited to the Holy See. Of this total, 52 have resident representatives and 22 are non-resident. Australia and New Zealand are among other Commonwealth countries that have no representation to the Holy See. Her Majesty's Minister to the Holy See is in no way hindered in his activities by his present status.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his discussions at the meeting of the European Free Trade Association held in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May 1971.

asked the Seretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Free Trade Association Ministerial meeting in Reykjavik on 13th and 14th May.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the recent European Free Trade Association Ministerial Council meeting.

I am arranging for the Communiqué issued at the end of this meeting to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope to make a statement later today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Ceylon about further supplies of arms.

We have, naturally, been in consultation with the Ceylon Government. My information is that their immediate needs have now been met.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the overwhelming majority in this House will support the Government in any action taken, and over the sending of any supplies to support democratic institutions in this Commonwealth country?

We took the view, which I am glad to see has my hon. Friend's approval, that when law and order was threatened we had an obligation to a Commonwealth Government.

Do immediate needs include further supplies of arms?

I have said that there has been no request for further supplies of arms. If there was we would consider it on its merits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking towards the holding of an East-West Security Conference; and if, in the light of the current situation as regards Berlin, he will not insist on prior settlement of that issue as a pre-condition.

This question will be discussed at the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting of N.A.T.O. in Lisbon. Hitherto the view of our Allies, fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, has been that questions of European security cannot be dissociated from the Berlin problem.

While we all want to see some progress over Berlin, is it not wrong to make the settlement of the Berlin problem a pre-condition? Is this not being put forward as yet another obstacle to holding the conference when all sides seem to want such a conference? Why cannot we get on with it?

The answer to that question is that if we cannot make progress on what ought to be a comparatively simple matter—that is, arranging civilised conditions of entry to the city of Berlin with the Soviet Union—there is not much point in setting up new machinery for wider consultations. We are trying very hard to get a Berlin settlement. The sooner that is done the sooner we can get on to further measures of conciliation.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that because Berlin is a potential powder keg it is essential that these two things should go hand in hand?

Yes, Sir. We must not be rigid in this matter. I am certain that agreement on Berlin would open the door to other negotiating positions with the Soviet Union. The sooner we get on with the Berlin settlement the better.

While the whole House will share the Foreign Secretary's view that there should be a settlement on Berlin as soon as possible, may I ask him whether he would not accept that when N.A.T.O. first made its proposals in 1968 for mutual and balanced force reductions negotiated with the Warsaw Pact it did not settle on Berlin as a condition but this condition was set, in my view quite rightly, when the much wider question of a European Security Conference was raised by the Soviet Union? Is it not the case that in the last few days both Mr. Brehznev in the Soviet Union and Mr. Rogers in the United States have indicated a desire to hold an early conference on mutual and balanced force reductions without any pre-conditions regarding the holding of a European conference? Is he aware that Mr. Brehznev has recently stopped talking about a European Security Conference and talks simply about a European conference? Would the Foreign Secretary undertake on behalf of the Government to support any move inside the Western Alliance to move rapidly to negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions quite separately, if necessary, from a general conference on Berlin as well?

Yes, but reductions must be mutual and balanced. I cannot see any reason, as there is a Disarmament Committee permanently sitting in Geneva, in active session—although it does not move much—why this question cannot be taken there.

rose—

Order. The right hon. Member will be brief, I hope.

I will be brief. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's Government has until now taken the view that the question of mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe should be discussed between the two alliances and not at the Geneva meeting. Is he not aware that Mr. Rogers yesterday made a statement indicating that the American Government were prepared to proceed immediately to discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions provided that the Soviet Union said that it was sincerely interested in doing so?

We will at any time be willing to do that but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of disarmament can be discussed at Geneva, along with wider questions. If any special machinery is necessary we are certainly willing to consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has now received requests for the issue of licences to supply arms to South Africa.

No requests for licences relating to any new arms deal with South Africa have been received. However, as I told the House on 22nd February, we are continuing the practice of the previous Administration in licensing the export of certain spare parts.—[Vol. 812, c. 34–42.]

Does that mean that no applications for licences for the Westland helicopters have yet been received? Is it right that because of the doubt which still exists over the Government's future policy, in Zambia, for instance, Marconi has lost a valuable contract? Does this also apply to Nigeria? Have we lost important contracts there?

No request for licences for the helicopters has yet been received. I am not aware that we have lost important contracts because of any doubt about our South African arms policy. These questions should be treated on their merits, irrespective of what future policy might be.

From the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, can it be taken that no discussions are taking place with a view to any extension of arms sales to South Africa? Can we read that into the answer?

The hon. Gentleman can put his own interpretation on my answer. What would happen if the South African Government wanted to place orders for arms would be that it would make a request for licences. No such request has been received.

If there is any blackmail from any Government, as the hon. Member has suggested—and I do not know whether that is the case—may all aid be stopped at once?

I am not anxious to link our aid programme with political issues. We must try to avoid that if possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the purpose of his forthcoming official visit to Portugal.

The Portuguese Government invited me to pay a short official visit to Lisbon on 1st and 2nd June, since I shall be attending the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Lisbon on 3rd and 4th June. I welcomed this opportunity to exchange views with the Portuguese Foreign Minister.

The House will appreciate that the right hon. and learned Gentleman condones neither the suppression of human rights within Portugal nor the repression of people in her overseas territories, but will he take up with the Portuguese Government the degree of feeling in this country on both these scores and discuss with them the concern in this country about the possible abuse of Portugal's membership of N.A.T.O. in the conduct of her overseas wars?

We have no evidence whatever of any abuse by Portugal of her obligations to N.A.T.O. as a result of her overseas policies in Africa. The substance of the discussions with the Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Portugal must be confidential.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of pressing upon the Portuguese Government the feelings, not only in this country, but in the rest of the world, about Portugal's continued occupation of her colonies and, in so doing, give the kind of lead that Mr. Harold Macmillan gave in South Africa in the "wind of change" speech.

Our colonial policy and the colonial policy of the Portuguese Government have differed and are different. This is a matter for the Portuguese Government in which I would not interfere. I shall, of course, discuss these matters with the Minister.

Do we not have something to learn from Portugal in the matter of good race relations?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations through the appropriate channels responsible for the organisation of aid to developing countries to secure the establishment of a central institute of research on co-operative systems on a multi-lateral basis.

Many international governmental and non-governmental agencies are already working in the field of cooperative research and development. I think it is more important to improve the co-ordination of these activities through the channels already available than to create another new body.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is perhaps most important in the area of agrarian and subsistence economies that co-operative economic and social systems of self-help are built up? In the last 10 years, as he rightly said, a multitude of research projects have been announced. Is it not vitally important that we should have one central research institute to avoid duplication, and also to assess the results of the research which has been going on?

Because it is an important area and because co-ordinating institutions do exist it is important to increase the efficiency of those co-ordinating institutions rather than create a new one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Foreign Minister with a view to increasing the amount of economic aid; and if he will make a statement.

Has the recent television programme about Mr. Muggeridge in Calcutta been drawn to the Minister's attention? It showed an elderly man lying dying at the roadside and being half eaten by rats, and also showed a boy of five being thrown on the street because his people could no longer keep him. Is that not a blight on the British Commonwealth? Cannot something be done to alleviate this terrible hardship?

I am afraid I missed the television programme, but I am well aware that there is a great problem in India, and that is one of the reasons why one-fifth of our whole aid programme goes to India.

Is the Minister aware that India has the additional problem of looking after 2 million Pakistani refugees, plus 70,000 a day coming in? If Pakistan is raising objections to aid and supervision, cannot the British Government provide additional aid to India to look after the Pakistanis?

There was a good deal of discussion about refugees from Pakistan in the debate last Friday, when, I think, the hon. Member was unable to be here, and when I made it quite clear that the United Nations was examining this matter and that we would be willing to join in and make a contribution if the United Nations effort were maintained.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress towards a Union of Arab Emirates between the Trucial States and Bahrain and Qatar.

Recent efforts by the Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti Governments have not yet brought about agreement on a constitution between the member States of the Union of Arab Emirates. The situation is now being considered by the Governments concerned, and Sir William Luce is now visiting the area again at my request to make an up-to-date assessment.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him, in view of the increasing instability in the area and the territorial threats from various sources, whether he can give an assurance that there will be no hasty decision about withdrawal of British troops from the area?

I think my hon. Friend knows the position about the withdrawal. We are taking infinite care to create the right political structure in which we can make treaty arrangements.

Could the Foreign Secretary tell us what the Government's view is of recent statements from the Iranian Government concerning the Tumbs and Abu Musa? Does he not recognise that there is a risk of a rather squalid and ludicrous military confrontation on these tiny islands unless there is rapid progress in making a settlement, and can he tell us how far he has gone?

The need to settle this question is obvious, but I would rather not go into details now, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could put down a Question later.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total value of British assets expropriated in Commonwealth African States since January, 1966; and to what extent compensation has been obtained.

It is not practicable to give the figure sought by my hon. Friend. Negotiations have been completed or are in train between the Governments concerned and some companies affected.

Is it not the case that, despite sanctions and bans of various kinds, there has been no expropriation in Southern Africa? Should not this be borne in mind when assessing our economic interests north and south of the Zambesi respectively?

I have noted my hon. Friend's remark, which is in substance correct. My hon. Friend was sent detailed information on 27th August last, and I can, if he wishes, send him further information, as it is available, about expropriations and settlements since that date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been paid by the West German Government for currency compensation to Great Britain for keeping her Armed Forces in West Germany since 1961; and whether the new agreement will involve a further increase in the payment by the Bonn Government.

The value of the offset provisions since 1961 is£581 million. Under the new agreement, we shall be receiving cash payments totalling about£62·5 million over the next five years in addition to civil and military purchases to be made by the Federal Government on the lines of earlier agreements.

Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the increase in the payments made by the German Government will match the increasing cost of living and the increasing cost of money?

It is true that we have never since the occupation régime ended in 1955 asked the Federal Government to pay us the entire budgetary costs of maintaining our troops in Germany. That would be a manifestly unfair and unrealistic demand.