asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertaking was given to the Australian Government in the negotiations with the Six to ask for a transitional period before applying the common external tariff against Australian primary produce in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he proposes to seek in relation to Australia in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.

There have been full consultations with all Commonwealth countries. No specific undertakings were given to Australia, but the Australian Government were told that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to secure the longest possible transitional arrangements for Commonwealth countries.

Would my right hon. Friend explain how a misunderstanding seems to have arisen between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Douglas Anthony, who seems to have gone away very sore about undertakings which he expected to get? Will my right hon. Friend use his great influence to restore normal relations with the Australian Government?

Yes, Sir. There was no intention whatever to mislead and, I think, no grounds for being misled, because, as I said, no promise was given. We have tried to get the longest possible transitional arrangement and we have succeeded in getting one for five years.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed about the attitude which the Australian Government have taken on this matter and that some of us who have been to Australia think that the Australians have some ground for it? Will my right hon. Friend personally given an assurance that he will look into this and try to rectify some of the obvious ill-feeling which has arisen?

I can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into it. I will certainly try to rectify any misgivings which may have arisen.

Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to a letter by the Deputy High Commissioner of Australia in last Saturday's Economist suggesting that, if there were not a misunderstanding, there was a complete difference of opinion between the two Governments about what Her Majesty's Government's obligations had been in their undertaking on 22nd April and the way in which they had subsequently behaved?

I have seen that letter, of course. There were consultations with the Commonwealth High Commissioners after every meeting in Brussels, and on 22nd April it was of course known that we were to accept the Community's preference system. It is a matter of explaining to the Australian Government exactly what the pledges were. As I said earlier, I will try to contribute to that explanation.

Is it not extraordinary that long after the event it should be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to explain to the Australian Government what pledges had been given at a meeting on 22nd April and whether action they took a month later without subsequent consultations with the Australian Government was consistent with those pledges?

No, Sir. The reason one must explain is that there have been misunderstandings. I do not think that there was any ground for misunderstanding. On 22nd April it was clear that we were to accept the Community's preference system.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained about the economic future of the European Free Trade Association countries who do not seek to enter the Common Market; and what bankable guarantees he was given about their ability to trade with Great Britain in the future, without any discrimination against them on the same terms as under the European Free Trade Association agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards have been secured in the European Economic Community negotiations against any re-erection of trade barriers between the United Kingdom and those European Free Trade Association states not applying for European Economic Community membership.

The nature of the relations between European Free Trade Association non-applicants and the Community is a matter for their respective governments, but we hope that the arrangements which they conclude will avoid the re-erection of trade barriers as a consequence of enlargement of the Community. Our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners remain as stated in the E.F.T.A. Communiqué of 28th April, 1967, published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May, 1967.—[Vol. 746, c. 87–8.]

Does not the hon. Gentleman see that, in my Question, I ask about bankable guarantees that trade barriers will not be erected between us and our E.F.T.A. partners? All that the hon. Gentleman has given is a repetition of the pious hopes contained in the White Paper, and they do not take us any further. Is he aware that there is growing pressure in Denmark and Norway against entry into the Market and that those Governments require considerable majorities in their Parliaments, to be followed by referenda? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the latest news from Sweden is that the people of that country are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of association and that there is great concern about the effect of entry on our E.F.T.A. partners and about the effect on our own foreign trade?

I am always interested to hear any news that the hon. Lady has received. As I made clear in my original Answer, all members of E.F.T.A. are either negotiating for entry into the Community or holding discussions with the Community about their relations with it.

We know that.

The discussions with those who are not candidates for full membership have not gone very far. But, now that we have broken the back of our own negotiations, we hope that those of the non-candidates will make progress towards getting the type of arrangement that they all seek.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will treat the E.F.T.A. countries rather better than did the previous Government who, without consultation, unilaterally imposed a surcharge damaging to their exports?

This Government will always treat their friends well.

Tell that to the Commonwealth.

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

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

The results of the major issues resolved in the negotiations are set out in full in the White Paper laid before the House last week.

Can my right hon. Friend say whether the remaining negotiations will cover regional policies, and will he comment on reports that plans now being made in Brussels will compel a major change in our regional policies involving a return to investment grants and a reduction in certain areas to a maximum level of grant of 20 per cent.?

I can hardly comment on the latest proposal. It is a proposal which has been put forward by the Commission. I do not think that it has been received by the Council of Ministers, which will have to consider it and which may take any action on it, even sending it back to the Commission for review. It is too early to talk about that.

Will my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the terms which have emerged from the negotiations have received a very different reception from leaders of Socialist Parties on the Continent from the tepid condemnation in that very sad broadcast of the Leader of the Opposition on Friday?

I think that I must leave out the Leader of the Opposition until I know a little more clearly what is his view. Certainly the regional policies have been welcomed by all the countries which benefit from them within the Community.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the last time that a version of a White Paper was issued free through the Post Office? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to allow a statement opposing entry to the Common Market also to be issued free through the Post Office?

My hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point later.

Would my right hon. Friend like me to send to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who asked the original Question on regional development, a very interesting letter which I have had from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Would it not be better, and eminently more satisfactory, to try to find out, before asking Questions of that kind, what our people have in mind?

I think that my hon. Friend was only seeking additional information.

As a Scottish Member will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether it is still the Government's intention to reach a decision on the Common Market fisheries policy before the House is finally asked to approve entry in November?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about fishing policy in Brussels today. I hope that he will soon be able to make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to negotiations with the European Economic Community, in particular in regard to its fisheries policy.

I have nothing to add at present to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 24th June. Fisheries is one of the subjects being discussed at the Ministerial meeting today and, with permission, my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on this meeting later this week.—[Vol. 819, c. 1609–10.]

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend has seen the divergent Press reports today on this question, and may I suggest that, in order to prevent a great deal of anxiety within the fishing industry, the 1964 Fisheries Convention is reconvened as a basis for a settlement of this very difficult question?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have told the Community that its fishing scheme is not acceptable for an enlarged Community. I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the Fisheries Convention.

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Community's present policy is not acceptable. Will he give an assurance that we shall accept no terms about fisheries which are less favourable than those offered to the Norwegians?

I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend to see what discussions have been going on in Brussels today. The right hon. Gentleman knows that our present fishing arrangements are not comparable with those of the Norwegians. In other words, we allow certain European countries to fish for certain types of fish between the six and 12-mile limits.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on frequent occasions the Government have said that we must know where we stand with regard to the fisheries regulations before this House is asked to come to a decision on the matter? May we be assured that that remains the Government's policy?

That would certainly be our ambition, but I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend in a couple of days, when he will be able to give us a fuller account of the discussions that have taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for the widest possible public understanding of the White Paper on the European Economic Community negotiations.

I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the White Paper is already attracting the very considerable publicity the Government would wish it to receive.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the issue of the short version of the White Paper will be very welcome indeed? In view of the gradual movement of public opinion in favour of British entry, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues will take every opportunity during the next few weeks of putting the complete picture to the public, because many of us have found that constituents who previously were sceptical, when presented will all the arguments for and against are quick to see the advantages of joining?

All these matters will be discussed during the debate in the House next week. The shortened version of the White Paper is to be distributed in the same way as the Government's Fact Sheets on Britain and Europe, including being made available free of charge at Post Offices. It will be available from today.

Did the hon. Gentleman notice that on the day after the publication of the full White Paper The Guardian devoted to it two full pages of comment by Hella Pick and its economics correspondent, who dealt with it under two headings, one pointing out what the White Paper did not say and the other what it left out? Would it not be more advisable, before publishing even the shortened version, for the Government to publish a complete version, including some of the facts that are required before the debate starts?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for what The Guardian prints. If he has any matters to raise that he feels are not covered in the White Paper he will no doubt be able to refer to them in the debate.

As this is a vitally important decision that we must take, and in the interests of fairness, since the Government are allowing the free distribution of the simplified version of the White Paper in post offices, will they provide similar facilities to anti-Common Market people who want to put forward their point of view?

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that depth surveys of public opinion show conclusively that the more a person knows about the Common Market the likelier he is to support our entry?

I wholeheartedly agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which Community Institutions Her Majesty's Government will participate fully on the date of accession to the European Economic Community.

In the negotiations it has been agreed that the United Kingdom should participate from the date of accession in the Institutions of the Communities with a position equal to that enjoyed by France, Germany and Italy. These Institutions axe the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the European Court of Justice.

Is this not a very satisfactory outcome? Does it not mean that from the moment of accession Britain will be able to influence policies and avert the adoption of policies which might otherwise be unhelpful to this country, even if she were outside the Community?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend's comments. This is a very satisfactory outcome.

Does not the Minister agree that at the moment certain policies which the Commission is putting forward—for example, the regional policy—could badly affect areas like Merseyside? Does not he agree that it is not a question of some future date; could we not know now what is happening on these vital issues, which, if our people did know about them, they would certainly reject, in terms of regional policy?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the question of regional policies arises from a proposal that is being put forward by the Commission in Brussels, and therefore no decision has been taken. The other questions that the hon. Member raises are all points that he can raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy on his return from Brussels.

Can the Minister explain why Her Majesty's Government have left out from their large White Paper the figure showing the effect on our balance of payments of the changes in tariffs caused by our entry into the Common Market—especially since the last Government gave an estimate of between £250 million and £300 million? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the present Government are said to have had the same figure in their White Paper but to have taken it out because of political pressure brought to bear by some members of the Cabinet?

To do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, none of these questions is relevant to the original Question put to me. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the White Paper produced by his Government gave such a wide range of guesses that no one could possibly understand what was involved.

With great respect—

Order. We are to have a four-day debate on these matters. Mr. Healey.

On a point of order. Is it not in the interests of an intelligent debate that the House should have as much information as possible as to the terms before the debate takes place, especially since the Minister has just made a statement contrary to the facts in respect of the effect of tariff changes? This was given within a bracket of £50 million by the last Government, and a similar figure was prepared for the present Government but suppressed.

Order. The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of order. I have already called him to ask a supplementary question, after I have pointed out that we are to have a debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for misunderstanding your very kind advice to me. May I ask the Minister whether the bracket given by the last Government in their White Paper last year was not a wide one? The figure was given as between £250 million and £300 million. Is it not the case that a similar figure was prepared for inclusion in this White Paper but omitted as a result of the political fears of some members of the Cabinet?

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible for me to reply to detailed questions at this stage. The matters which he has raised this afternoon can be referred to in the debate next week.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have expressed opposition to Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.

None, Sir. Whilst a very few Commonwealth countries have commented on details of the arrangements arrived at in the negotiations, none has suggested that these constituted grounds on which the United Kingdom should not join the Communites.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but it would help us a lot if he were prepared to say whether he has had any unofficial expressions of opposition to the terms of our entry from any significant political group within the Commonwealth?

I cannot answer in respect of unofficial communications; I am concerned with official communications. I will try to get some information, but I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend very much.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country and throughout the Commonwealth consider that these negotiations are a battle that Britain has lost and that the White Paper constitutes an approach by the Government suing for peace? Since grave apprehensions are held by people throughout the Commonwealth, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see whether there should not be a special conference of Commonwealth countries to discuss many things about which they are gravely apprehensive?

The hon. Gentleman is an artist at putting his own opinion in the mouths of millions of others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Australia's export earnings he estimates would be at risk as a result of British entry into the European Economic Community.

The value of Australian exports which could be affected by enlargement of the European Economic Community, on the basis of 1969–70 figures, is at most 7½ per cent. of her total export earnings.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that the figures seem remarkably small? Would not many people be liable to ask what all the fuss is about? Cannot my right hon. Friend also tell the House what extra opportunities would be available to Australian exports as a result of our joining the Community?

The figures may be small, but to Australia they can be important. The butter and sugar exports are even smaller—about 1·1 per cent. I would have thought that with the increased size of the European Community and the comparatively low external tariff, Australia should have many opportunities for selling to this big market.

Assuming that we do not go into the European Economic Community, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have to have a sharp look at the position in which Australia is exporting to us tariff-free while we have to overcome tariff barriers in our exports to Australia?

As the hon. Member hints, the erosion of preferences started with the Commonwealth countries who wanted to manufacture their own goods. Certainly we should have had to have regard in the future to all Commonwealth trading arrangements.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there was surprisingly little complaint from Australia until recently, when they were nearing an election? Since on every occasion when Australia has wished to manufacture her own goods she has put on large tariffs against our exports, and has used factories in her own country and elsewhere, would it not be more reasonable to accept that both countries should do their best for each other by being as rich as possible?

I agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I could not agree with the assumption that he made at the beginning of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments relating to the agreement on British entry into the European Economic Community reached at Luxembourg.

The Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Commerce has expressed concern about the effect of some of Australia's exports of the agreement reached; no other Commonwealth Government has made representations on this subject.

Is it not clear that the very last thing that the Commonwealth as a whole wants now is for Britain's entry to fail? Is the Minister aware that many of the complaints made about terms, allegedly on behalf of Commonwealth interests, are neither asked for nor wanted by the Commonwealth countries themselves?

It is true that many Commonwealth countries—in fact, all of them, I believe—recognise that, unless she increases her strength, Britain is not much use to them. Therefore, they do support our entry into the Market.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, in regard to Australia, whatever the percentage of exports concerned—7 per cent. was mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)—it is a human and social problem that we are talking about for these farmers and sugar growers?

Yes, that is true. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy went to such pains to get the Community's agreement that, should vital interests be affected, they would deal with them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are being taken to reduce the number of diplomatic staff in foreign embassies in Great Britain suspected of engaging primarily on espionage activities.

When there is firm evidence that a foreign diplomat in London has engaged in espionage, the Head of the Mission concerned is normally asked to withdraw him. From time to time we have made representations to certain Governments on this subject.

Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the expulsion of British diplomats from Moscow recently was not because they were engaged in espionage but was simply a counter-measure to action which we had taken? Further, could he give any figures to indicate an increase in the number of diplomats in the embassies of particularly Eastern European countries and the Communist bloc over the last ten years?

I can give an absolute assurance that the action taken by the Soviet Union in respect of our diplomats was purely retaliatory—there was no ground for it. In the last eighteen months, there has been a noticeable increase in embassy staff. Three members of the Soviet Embassy have been removed at our request and we have had to decline to issue visas for five more. I have taken this up with the Soviet Government.

What action is being taken to reduce the gross disparity between the number of Eastern European and Soviet diplomats, or so-called diplomats, in this country and of our diplomats in theirs?

We have this matter under close consideration all the time. I should not like to say any more about it at the moment. These matters can best be settled in a friendly way with the Soviet Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he now has to visit Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on the visit of Lord Goodman to Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now pay an official visit to Rhodesia.

I have no plans to visit Rhodesia at present. Lord Goodman has visited Rhodesia at my request to engage in exploratory discussions. As I have told the House, I shall make a statement when there is something of substance to report. As I have often said, any settlement would have to be within the five principles.

Having regard to the constantly totalitarian and racist behaviour of the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia, will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what possible credence he could give to any pledge by that Government to honour the five principles? Having regard to that behaviour, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be best if these talks, official, unofficial, or whatever they are, were called off at once?

The hon. Gentleman might have put that question to his right hon. Friend some time ago.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are glad to know that he has made plain his approval of the wise words of a wise statesman, Sir Roy Welensky, that, inevitably, this society will lead to an apartheid-type society? Since the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to see black helots or slaves administered by a white minority, is he aware that we are glad to hear him say that he will stand by the five principles and not settle on any other terms?

Our obligation, as far as we can discharge it, is to the Europeans and the Africans in Rhodesia. That is why a settlement must be within the framework of the five principles that we have made.

In view of the fact that Rhodesia effectively has been independent for 48 years and that for the last seven we have tried unsuccessfully to pretend otherwise, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might not be a bad idea to consider the possibility of recognising that, if the Rhodesians wish to risk the prospect of a blood bath in 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, it is no business of ours?

I think that the general opinion in the House is that at least we should try to bring Rhodesia to legality. That is the whole purpose of the negotiations.

While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's reassertion of his determination to ensure that the five principles are complied with, including the fifth, which would meet the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will take no decision about changing the Government's relations with Rhodesia before the House has a chance to consider the proposals that are in mind?

All Governments must always reserve the right to take decisions when they like. I have promised that I shall come to the House and make a statement the moment that there is anything of substance to report. That might well be on the approach to a decision.

I can well understand that, but I hope that, in view of the deep interest and concern on both sides of the House, the right hon. Gentleman will assure us that he will take no decision about changing the relations of Her Majesty's Government with Rhodesia while the House is in recess. The right hon. Gentleman gave a similar undertaking last year with regard to arms for South Africa. This matter is of equal importance to our relations with the whole of Africa, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman ought to give a similar assurance.

The right hon. Gentleman is not quite accurate about what I said in relation to South Africa. No Government can possibly pledge themselves as to when they will or will not take a decision. What I can say is that, before anyone else knows about the decision, that decision will be brought to this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the future of the Rhodesian sanctions Royal Air Force detachment in Malagasy.

The Government of the Malagasy Republic have confirmed that they would like the Royal Air Force detachment at Majunga to be withdrawn. Exchanges with the Malagasy Government about the timing and other implications of their request are continuing.

On the assumption that this patrol has been performing an invaluable function in enforcing sanctions, commensurate with its cost, can my hon. Friend say how this blockade is to continue without it, and what alternative plans he has to replace it?

It is true that this detachment has been helpful for patrol purposes and that its disappearance will naturally make the operation more difficult, but I think that the question of what, if anything, should be put in its place is for my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence.

As the Government have decided to run on the aircraft carrier for another few years, would not this be a very good use for it? This is a rôle which it could usefully perform, whereas it has no useful rôle in the Mediterranean or North Atlantic.

That, too, is obviously a question for my noble Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about relations with Malta.

Since the statement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 1st July, there have been further exchanges with the Prime Minister of Malta, and our High Commissioner returned to Valletta on 7th July after his consultations with me.

Do not many of us who know Dom Mintoff like to remember the time when he wanted to get closer to Britain? Will my right hon. Friend consider whether the time might have come when a Minister should go to Malta so that we can have some reciprocity in plain speaking? Meanwhile, may we be told whether the defence agreement is still fully effective?

The answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes". The defence agreement is still effective. Certainly I shall consider the possibility of a Minister going out to talk to Mr. Dom Mintoff about the review of the defence agreement that he has requested. But the defence agreement is effective now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish as a White Paper the proposals which he plans to advance at the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Seabed in relation to the entrenched rights of coastal States within the proposed trusteeship area.

No, Sir. As my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 10th May, much detailed work remains to be done on this subject and it would not be feasible to set out our ideas in full in a a White Paper. But I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT an outline of what our general attitude will be to the position of coastal States in relation to the trusteeship area.—[Vol. 817, c. 27.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. Does the Answer of 10th May mean that the Government propose that, in addition to sovereign rights over territorial waters, there shall be entrenched rights over the area beyond? Is that not abdicating international control over two-thirds of the earth's surface, which is already potentially an arsenal, a gold mine and a sewer?

No, Sir. I do not think that that is fair. We support the principle that the resources of the seabed should be regarded as a common heritage. We believe that the trusteeship concept, which we support, will give rights both to coastal States and to the international community, which is not inconsistent with that principle.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will make no decision regarding the supplying of further armaments to the South African Government while the House of Commons is in Recess.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what orders for maritime arms have now been made by the South African Government; and what reply has been sent.

No new orders have been received for maritime arms. As I have said, the House will be informed of any decision to enter into any new arms deal with South Africa covering categories outside those comprised in my statement of 22nd February.—[Vol. 812. c. 34–42.]

I welcome that reply. Will the Foreign Secretary be a little clearer and be prepared to say, as he did in answer to my earlier question about Rhodesia, that, whatever decision the Government may take, the House will be the first body to be informed of such a decision and that therefore no decision Will be published during the recess? Secondly, will he tell us whether the Government's attitude on the supply of further arms to South Africa will depend on South Africa's pressure on the Rhodesian Government for a settlement satisfactory to the British Government of the Rhodesian problem?

On the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I propose that the first statement about additional arms to South Africa should be made to the House.

Is it not a fact that, for obvious reasons, the South African Government never ask for orders in this country until they have been assured that they will get export licences? Will my right hon. Friend tell us, for example, whether, if they wanted Nimrods, export licences would be available?

We have not got a request for Nimrods. My hon. Friend is right about the procedure. A request comes and then the British Government reply whether they will give an export licence, and the licence is not given for some time. For example, licences have not yet been issued for the helicopters, because they have not been asked for.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether any talks are to be held with the two South African officials who are today visiting a Yarrow shipyard and who were reported on the B.B.C. this morning as being very eager to have discussions about the further purchase of frigates?

I have heard nothing of this matter, but I will look into it.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether the arguments in favour of the supply of these arms in the interests of our own defence are now stronger or weaker than they were when advocated a year or two ago by the then Foreign Secretary and the then Secretary of State for Defence?

As my right hon. Friend knows, we are always concerned about the defence of the Indian Ocean and the sea routes, and the arguments for this have become stronger. We also measure the question whether we sell more arms to South Africa by the necessity to keep to the Simonstown Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement of Government policy on The Hague International Court ruling on Namibia, South-West Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs following the judgment of the International Court of Justice, whether he will make a statement on British policy towards Namibia.

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa and the separate and dissenting opinions are long and important. I must ask hon. Members to await the completion of the Government's study of the Opinion.

Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the South African Government that Her Majesty's Government consider that South Africa's writ does not now run in South-West Africa? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate some idea of the line he intends to take when the whole Opinion is discussed in the United Nations?

No, Sir. As I said, this is a long judgment—it runs to 400 pages—and there are dissenting judgments. I must ask for time to consider it before answering a question on it.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this Advisory Opinion is of great significance not only for itself but for the process of building up the whole tradition of international law? Will he undertake to come to the House as soon as possible and make the fullest possible statement on the Government's position? If by any chance the Government decide that they will not accept this Advisory Opinion, will he make a full statement to the House on precisely how they can justify that attitude?

I will certainly take the opportunity to clarify this matter to the House as soon as the Government are ready to do so.

As the matter is now being discussed in the United Nations and it may be that the question will arise for decision at a fairly early stage, will the Foreign Secretary assure us that the Government will not apply the veto, as they did on an earlier occasion in relation to Southern Africa, and that, before a decision is announced, or perhaps when the decision has been announced but at an early stage thereafter, there will be a debate about the whole problem of Namibia?

We shall have to see what happens in the United Nations. The United Nations has been known to discuss things without adequate knowledge.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the negotiations with Japan for acceptance by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary country within the Generalised Preference Scheme.

Discussions with Japan on the question of Hong Kong's inclusion as a beneficiary in the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme have taken place over a period of many months. The question was also discussed by my right hon. Friend with Mr. Aichi, the then Japanese Foreign Minister, during his visit to London last month. As stated in the communiqué after these talks, Mr. Aichi declared that it was the intention of the Japanese Government to include Hong Kong in their scheme, subject to certain restrictions and some delay in application.

Is my hon. Friend aware how welcome it is that the Government have been able to secure the inclusion by Japan of Hong Kong as a beneficiary under the scheme? Will he tell us how long the delay, to which he has referred, is expected to be?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points which he has made. Hong Kong and other dependent territories will not be included at the start of the Japanese Generalised Preference Scheme on 1st August this year. The most probable date for their subsequent inclusion is 1st April, 1972. The final shape of the Japanese offer to Hong Kong has not yet been decided.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates he has received from the British High Commissions in Pakistan and in India of the number of deaths among residents in, and refugees from, East Pakistan, and as to how such deaths were caused.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest diplomatic initiatives undertaken by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the situation in Pakistan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will grant further humanitarian aid for Pakistan.

It has not been possible for our Missions in Pakistan and India to make estimates of the number of deaths caused. We are making a contribution of £1 million in cash or kind to U Thant's appeal for relief in East Pakistan. This is over and above anything given up till now.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the situation has reached the stage of a major catastrophe, not only for the refugees but also for the Government and people of India? Would he not agree that there is a real threat to international peace? Will he reconsider raising the matter at the United Nations or at the Security Council?

I think that there are two issues here. The first is how to help ameliorate the terrible conditions. The second is how to reverse the flow of refugees. Many Governments are giving active consideration to the issue. No positive proposals have come forward as yet, although I am considering one put forward by the High Commissioner for Refugees.

Approximately how much economic aid is being, or is to be supplied to West Pakistan? Should it not be ended entirely until the West Pakistan Army is withdrawn from East Pakistan, and the aid supplied to India instead?

My right hon. Friend is shortly to answer a Question about that. The greater part of the new aid which we hope to be able to supply is in East Pakistan, particularly in relation to power and water, and it is very important that this should happen if it is at all possible. As regards West Pakistan, I think that my right hon. Friend will answer a Question about that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware how much his statement is welcomed and how responsible throughout these tragic times the Government's attitude has been? In particular, I welcome the £1 million extra for humanitarian relief in East Pakistan because it is true, is it not, that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has emphasised the necessity for the long-term rehabilitation of the economy in the eastern wing of Pakistan?

I think that the extra £1 million will help particularly the distress in the cyclone areas, where communications have been badly hit.

In view of the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he has used his influence with the American Government, with whom he has discussed these matters, to see that our decision not to supply arms to West Pakistan is shared by the American Administration?

Communications between ourselves and the American Government must be confidential. I am responsible for the United Kingdom Government's decision.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the behaviour of the West Pakistan Army goes far beyond what is needed to restore law and order in East Pakistan, and that the Army's conduct is the main cause of the enormous flood of refugees into India? Will he bring all possible pressure to bear to cause some change in what is happening?

I must say, as I have said before, that the flight of the refugees is largely due to fear. I think that it would not help if I were to say any more than that now. Again, I think that it is more helpful that our communications with the Pakistan Government should be private.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for renewing diplomatic relations with Albania.

None, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend see whether it is possible to help this country maintain and develop the independence that we did so much to re establish?

We are always ready to listen to any initiative from Albania, but we have not heard anything from her in this matter. In the meantime, I do not think that our tourist and trading relations are harmed by our not having diplomatic relations with her.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Government's future aid programme to India.

I cannot add at present to the reply I gave on 21st June to a Question from the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart).—[Vol. 819, c. 986–87.]

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that aid is of little use without greater opportunities for trade? If he agrees on that, would he not also agree that there is room for grave concern at the latest developments in economic relationships between India and Britain and the possible implications for the Indian economy of our entry into the E.E.C.? Would he assure us that there is no question of our being asked to vote on entry before we have the firmest possible assurances about how Indian economic interests are to be assured?

I cannot give that assurance, because my responsibilities are for aid to India and other countries. The responsibility for trade matters rests with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Questions about the trade agreements, tariffs, and quotas for textiles should be directed to my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding new economic assistance for Pakistan from the United Kingdom.

I have nothing to add to the statement which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made on 23rd June.—[Vol. 819, c. 1436–37.]

In view of the report of the World Bank on Pakistan, which shows an astonishing amount of ignorance on the part of the Government of Pakistan about the true situation in East Pakistan, can the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm that there will be no new economic assistance to Pakistan, as distinct from any relief operation in which Britain might engage in East Pakistan, until there is a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Pakistan?

What I am prepared to confirm are the actual words of the statement which my right hon. Friend made at the end of last month, in which he said that there was no question of new British aid—that is what the hon. Gentleman asked about—until we have firm evidence that real progress is made towards a political solution. That is what my right hon. Friend said, and that remains the position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will stop aid to Sierra Leone owing to its occupation by Guienean armed forces.

No, Sir.

In the circumstances, that country is in a unique position, in that there is an alien, aggressive, Communist invading force there. In those circumstances, can we justify to the British taxpayer the spending of British money to support that country?

The factor about that country which is not unique is that it has a lawful Government. The lawful Government requested these troops, and there is no reason at all why I should suspend aid for that reason.

May I ask the Minister to pay no attention to this Fascist piffle? Is it not a fact that Siaka Stevens, the Prime Minister, asked Her Majesty's Government to give him help under these conditions but that we did not send any forces? This is a fellow Commonwealth State, and I object to this kind of attack on it.

I cannot accept that description of my hon. Friend's remarks. He has a point of view and he is perfectly at liberty to express it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I was in Sierra Leone recently and that I warmly support his answers today? Would he take this opportunity of agreeing with the view of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, that the primary aim of British aid is to assist long-term economic development, that this is in British interests and that it should not be turned off and on like a tap for short-term political reasons?

I am very glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. It is a point that I took the opportunity of emphasising in the debate last month.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will invite the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone to pay an official visit to London.

The Prime Minister of Sierra Leone was invited to pay an official visit to the United Kingdom in May. This invitation is still open.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply and associate myself with his right hon. Friend's rebuff to the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref). Nevertheless, could he convey to the Prime Minister of Sierra Leone the very real regret felt in this country at the recent executions there—while of course acknowledging that we have neither the right nor the need to interfere in their internal affairs?

As the hon. Gentleman says, we have no formal locus standi to interfere in these matters, but I am sure that the reactions of my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) when he went there recently will have shown that there is a great deal of good will for this country in Sierra Leone, which we heartily reciprocate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to set up additional development divisions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affair if he proposes to establish further development divisions similar to those in Barbados and Beirut.

When I replied to the recommendations of the Select Committee, I said that I could not yet say what would be the outcome of the study now being made of this matter. This is still the position.

But in view of our development aid programmes in Malawi, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland, and in view of the importance of showing con-cen for African advance in that region, will the Minister not now set up a development division to help co-ordinate our assistance and to make high-level professional advice available on the spot?

No, Sir. I cannot do it now, because I am still waiting for the study which is being made of the general principle affecting the development divisions. As my hon. Friend knows, I am generally sympathetic to this. I believe that the two which exist are very helpful. The area which he mentioned is one area that I have in mind for a possible future division if such were recommended.

Have not the two existing divisions conclusively proved themselves in terms of value for money, and are they not fully accepted as useful instruments by the countries whose territories they serve? Why, then, is it necessary to go into a long investigation of the principle of the matter? Is that not already agreed and can we not look forward to fairly ready action in the matter?

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the two existing divisions. I have already tried to make that point, but the principle is important, because the principle is obviously different in the Middle East or the Caribbean from that in other parts of the world. That is why it is important that we should look at it.

What has been the cause of the year's delay in taking further consideration of a development division for Southern Africa? It was already at a planning stage over a year ago. What has happened since then?

It is still at a planning stage and I hope that before long I shall be able to relieve the right hon. Lady's anxiety. I know she is keenly interested in this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to assume responsibility for the payment of overseas pensions directly to individual pensioners.

I cannot yet give a date, but it will be as soon as possible after we have the necessary legislative authority and the agreement of the various overseas governments concerned.

I welcome that statement, but would my right hon. Friend hasten the end of this process, both in the political interests of the countries concerned and to remove from pensioners themselves further worry about dislocation of payments?

Yes, Sir. I see the urgency of this, but legislation requires time, and time is required for other legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest representations to the Soviet authorities, following the recent. Court decisions in the Soviet Union affecting Jewish citizens who wish to emigrate to Israel.

During his recent visit to Moscow the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office informed a senior Soviet official of the concern felt in Britain at reports about trials of Soviet Jews, from which Western journalists have been excluded.

Without any disrespect to the Permanent Under-Secretary of State, would my hon. Friend see to it that this is done again at a higher level, so that there may be made quite clear to the Soviet Union, which does not appear to be as insensitive to public opinion abroad as perhaps some may imagine, the total abhorrence felt in this country at what his happening to Jews?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has done this a number of times in this country, and our representative at the United Nations has also made himself absolutely clear about it.