asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about the British arms shipments to Pakistan.

None, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to my answers to the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) on 26th April.—[Vol. 816, c. 29.]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply but does he not agree that there is certain action which he would take, which should have have been taken long ago; namely, to bring about a political solution to this tragic conflict? Does he not think that he should take the initiative to bring together the major parties concerned with arms shipments to Pakistan, in order to see that no more shipments take place, as a first step towards reaching such a political agreement?

It must be for the other countries concerned to decide their own arms policy.

Then it goes on for ever.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that on a matter of this kind it might be useful to consult one of our principal allies, the United States, to see whether we cannot together agree on a policy of withholding arms from Pakistan?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what negotiations will be necessary under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade should any of the present European Free Trade Assciation members not obtain full membership of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Of the present members of the European Free Trade Association, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Norway have applied for full membership of the European Community.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that there will have to be negotiations? If there will have to be, has he taken note of the serious increase in protectionist sentiment in the United States recently and especially the Congressional sentiment, towards trade and agriculture policy? Does he have anything to say about that?

The position of the United States is another matter. In the course of all these negotiations a number of things happen which are relevant to G.A.T.T. All that will happen, in the normal course of events, is that when the agreement is concluded we shall report the matter to G.A.T.T.

If we do not join the Common Market, what agreement shall we seek with Common Market countries?

That is a hypothetical question, which is not likely to arise.

To revert to the original Question, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the speech by Senator Humphrey in London last weekend, and earlier speeches made by the American Secretary of the Treasury and the American Secretary of State? Since Her Majesty's Government—I understand—are now being consulted by the members of the Common Market on important major issues of common concern, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will press for a reduction in the present discrimination operating in the Common Market against external countries, in view of the real risk that this could lead to American retaliation and grave damage to British trade?

We have been in close touch with the American Administration. I have seen the speech to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. He will know that successive American Administrations have wholeheartedly supported Britain's application to join the Community, and have wished to see enlargement of the Community for many reasons. There are a number of matters that concern them about which we keep in touch. It is also fair to bear in mind that the Community is less protectionist than many other countries are.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what restrictions there are in the countries of the European Economic Community on participation in pools operated in Great Britain; and what action is being taken by Her Majesty's Government in negotiations for entry into the Common Market to remove such restrictions.

A number of such restrictions are applied, varying from country to country. They do not present a difficulty in so far as our accession to the Community is concerned and are not, therefore, a matter for negotiation.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that over 12,000 people are employed on the Merseyside in the pools business? Will it be possible to come to some agreement with the Common Market countries, rather on the lines of a double taxation agreement, whereby a proportion of our pools excise duty goes back to the country of origin, so that our balance of payments and employment on Merseyside may both benefit?

Our present arrangements outside the Community will not be affected by our joining. As regards the other matters which my hon. Friend raises, we shall, clearly, be in a better position, once we are inside the Community, to raise questions of that kind, all of which, I have no doubt, will be for the benefit of his constituents.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to hold a Ministerial meeting with the European Economic Community.

The next Ministerial meeting will be on 21st September.

When my right hon. and learned Friend started negotiations with the Six, was it on the basis that if terms were agreed and put before the House the Government should make them the question of a vote of confidence, and, following from that, was it also asked by the Six that there should be broad agreement between the two main parties, and did they ever define—if not, could he ask the Ministers to define—what they expect by the wholehearted support of the House?

None of those matters was raised with the Ministers; nor are they likely to be.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm with his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that, after that meeting, they should consider meeting their equivalent Ministers in the Commonwealth to discuss many of the points which must arise from the next meeting?

There are all sorts of discussions taking place at all sorts of levels all the time. I have no doubt that these will continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many members of the Commonwealth have now made official representations to Her Majesty's Government against details of the terms agreed for United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community; and if he will make a tour of those countries before final decisions on entry to the European Economic Community are taken.

No Commonwealth Government have expressed formal opposition to our joining the European Economic Community. Australia has expressed concern about the effect on its exports of some of the details of the arrangements negotiated. Some anxieties have also been expressed by India and Pakistan.

How many Commonwealth Governments have come out specifically and positively in favour of the terms of entry that have been negotiated? In answer to the second part of the Question, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that he will consult the Commonwealth Governments more closely on the implications of the Immigration Bill as it affects the free movement of labour of Commonwealth citizens into the country?

Various Commonwealth Governments have expressed their views at various times. I think that most of them have made it clear that they understand the reasons why we are applying, and many of them have specifically welcomed our application. There are regular meetings with the High Commissioners of the Commonwealth both in Brussels and in London. We are concerned, although we have not settled it yet, about the definition of "United Kingdom national" in the context of the movement of labour, and we are in consultation, and will remain in consultation, about that aspect.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the very great concern felt in Northern Ireland about the recently announced agreement that the movement of labour will be renewed by the Common Market countries after three years? Is he aware that this might affect the sovereignty of the people of Northern Ireland and lead to an upsetting of the political balance? Will he try to obtain better terms with respect to safeguarding employment in Northern Ireland?

That is taking the matter a little wider than the Question on the Order Paper. It would perhaps be more appropriate for me to deal with the point when we reach another Question later on.

Did I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that the Australian Government had made no formal complaint at all? Is he aware that broadcasts made by an Australian spokesman in this country on the subject created an unfavourable impression not only on British viewers but back home in Australia?

The point I was making was that Australia, like other Commonwealth countries, has never expressed opposition to our entry but has expressed anxieties about the effects of our entry upon certain specific exports. I believe that we have got an agreement which is much more comprehensive and effective than perhaps they fully understood. This matter was raised in last week's debate and I have indicated our willingness to consider with the Australian Government commodity by commodity where they feel it appropriate and where they feel that there is any threat of severe disruption to trade in any agricultural products.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he remains satisfied that the negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community will be completed in time for the announced timetable for parliamentary action; and if he will make a statement.

The progress in our negotiations with the Community gives no grounds to anticipate any adjustment to the arrangements for parliamentary consideration outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement to the House on 17th June.—[Vol. 819, c. 643–5.]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that negotiations on New Zealand are virtually finished and that the New Zealanders are satisfied that their interests will be protected for at least a generation? Will he also confirm that the fishery negotiations will take place at the next meeting of Ministers?

I am satisfied that the arrangements made for New Zealand are of unlimited duration, and I hope that they will continue for as long as necessary. The question of fisheries is difficult and complex. We may make progress on 21st September, but whatever happens we must go on until we reach a satisfactory arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the document, "Britain and Europe", contains no table showing relative social security benefit increases in Common Market countries comparable with the table showing increases in average incomes; and whether he will arrange for such a table to be included in subsequent editions.

No, Sir. There is obviously a limit to the number of tables and diagrams which can be included in a 16-page publication.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the taxpayers are paying for all this propaganda and that if they are paying for the false propaganda which is being put out, they would also like some facts and figures? Could the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster publish a supplementary White Paper to show all the necessary Orders in Council which the House will not be able to amend in any way and which will have to be agreed in toto, so that the House and the country may know what will have to happen?

I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for more information to be published. I wish that we could have found room for this table, because it would have shown the British people that by and large social security benefits are rather larger in the Community than they are here.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) very quickly moved from the subject of social security benefits when he found that such a table would be very much to the advantage of the argument of those who wish us to enter the European Economic Community? Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the possibility of producing another White Paper with all these facts so that one may show how clear is the case for our entry?

We will bear that in mind. Meanwhile, if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) cares to look at that excellent publication by the Community, "The Community and the Common Man", he will see a great deal of useful information supporting our entry.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a table of increases in average incomes is somewhat vague and that it would have been better to show a table of incomes for comparable occupations? Will he consider that as a supplement to the information already published?

It is important that it should be understood that the increase in real incomes in the Community in recent years has been far higher than that in the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the negotiations over British membership of the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the present state of the European Economic Community negotiations.

I have nothing to add to my statement of 14th July and to my answer on 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act.—[Vol. 821, c. 491–5; Vol. 822, c. 21–2.]

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the significant progress in recent weeks, perhaps as a result of debates in the House and outside, has been the highly significant and decisive swing in public opinion in favour of our entry into the Common Market?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right in what he says about public opinion. It is simply that the more people that know about the Community, the more they are anxious for us to go in.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend observed that this massive swing in public opinion in favour of entry—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, for the first time there are more people in favour than there are against—has occurred since the Leader of the Opposition came out against it? Can my right hon. and learned Friend judge whether this concatenation of events is purely coincidental?

That is not a matter for me. These are troubled waters in which I do not choose to delve at the moment.

As a number of important issues have been swept under the carpet because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was anxious to bring a cocked-up agreement to the House some weeks ago, can he tell the House what diplomatic activities will take place as soon as the House goes into recess on, for instance, the liquidation of the sterling balances, the abandonment of sterling as a reserve currency and the fishing agreements, all of them awkward questions? Are we to be given a report in the autumn about what will have been going on in the chancellories in the interim before we vote on the matter?

Some of these matters, not that concerning sterling, will come up in the negotiations again. There will be another Ministerial meeting on 21st September and I have no doubt that the subject of fisheries will be considered, although I cannot guarantee that we shall settle the matter then. Far from agreements having been cocked up, to use the hon. Gentleman's elegant expression, they have been carefully considered and always reported in full to the House.

In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's enthusiasm for giving the House and the public all possible information on this subject, can he explain to the House why the Government have suppressed the figure for the foreign exchange costs arising out of tariff changes on industrial goods, considering the fact that he gave the figure of £200 million to £300 million in December?

None of these matters arose in the negotiations, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate. The negotiations were concerned with the contribution to the Community budget, and that I dealt with on 16th December. There were then, derived from the White Paper of 1967, certain figures covering a number of matters, including tariff changes and changes in food import prices. One of these elements is quantified in the White Paper. The two balancing elements of the tariff changes due to changes of Commonwealth preference and the tariff advantages which will come from joining the Community are not quantifiable, and I think that everyone has recognised that. It has been very difficult for a long time.

Is it not the case that the Minister gave the House a figure in December of £200 million to £300 million and that it was suppressed, contrary to his own advice, by the Cabinet, and that he confirmed this figure privately as recently as 24th June?

The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge, naturally, of what advice I gave to the Cabinet, and it certainly would not follow the lines he has suggested. I have made it perfectly clear, and what I said on 16th December is on the record. It contains two elements, one of which has been quantified in the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what part a proposed British commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation European Defence Improvement Programme has played in the negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.

None, Sir. Defence matters have at no time been an issue in the negotiations for enlargement of the European Economic Community.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman assert that the fact that the billion-dollar European Defence Improvement Programme was agreed upon during the period of the Common Market negotiations is pure coincidence? Has his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary read the speech of the Minister of State for Defence at Munich in February in which he spoke of moving towards a political and defence union in Europe? Does this not mean a common weaponry and a consequent passing of British nuclear weapons into German and French hands, among others?

It had nothing to do with the negotiations to enter the Community. The hon. Gentleman can say it is coincidence in the sense that the agreement would have been reached in any event.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are those of us who are disturbed that defence has played no part in these discussions with the Community so far and who hope that such discussions will start before long?

They will not arise in these negotiations, although, of course, we have interests in European defence, and one hopes that there are many aspects of European defence which may be assisted as a result of the enlargement of the Community. That does not follow from the negotiations.

How can the Chancellor assert that it has nothing to do with defence policy when the White Paper asserts again and again that Britain's security as well as her prosperity would be increased if we were to join? Is this not yet another area in which the benefit of a detailed and probing Select Committee examination would be felt by the House and the country?

Even in a Select Committee people would have to ask the right questions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is no need to pussyfoot about it? Surely the object of our European policy should be to establish a European defence in a situation where the Americans want to leave and the Russians show no signs of doing so? Will he and the Government: draw the conclusions and not be afraid to tell the British nation?

As my hon. Friend appreciates, all that I am doing is answering a question about what part defence matters played in the negotiations. The answer is "none". That is not to say that European defence is not an important issue and that other of my right hon. Friends cannot deal with it and have not dealt with it from time to time.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman then deny, in the light of what he has said, that the Prime Minister has been pursuing plans for some time to create a joint Anglo-French nuclear command, which would be a third nuclear command? [Interruption.] I know that it has the support of some hon. Members opposite. Would the Minister admit that this plan is still in the mind of the Prime Minister and that the Government have failed to put any of these ideas before the House in the debate on entry to the E.E.C.? [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Prime Minister in the Chamber. I was asking his right hon. and learned Friend whether he has now given up the idea developed in the Godkin Lectures of an Anglo-French nuclear command. If he has not, are not the Government guilty of suppressing some of the essential elements in the whole negotiations over entry to the E.E.C.? Should there not be an additional White Paper on this problem before the House takes a vote on 28th October?

These questions have been put from time to time to the Prime Minister and he has answered them. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] They have played no part in the negotiations.

Returning to the original Question, would the Chancellor of the Duchy add to the dismay of his hon. Friends below the Gangway by admitting that the Government made no contribution to the European Defence Improvement programme until they had an assurance from the West German Government that they would meet the cost?

That has nothing whatever to do with this question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the request of the President of Uganda for the supply of arms.

It is not Government policy to disclose details of arms sales or prospective arms sales to individual countries.

In view of the publicity which was given to his request by the President when he was here, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government to make clear that at the moment it would be wrong for this Government to be involved in a dispute between two friendly members of the Commonwealth in a situation in which the allegations are at least debatable, if not unproven?

We have no wish to be involved in a dispute between two members of the Commonwealth in this way. Britain has been a traditional supplier of arms to many of its ex-dependent territories, including Uganda. I do not think that it would be right to comment on this particular issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Chinese People's Republic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he now proposes to alter the level of diplomatic representation in Peking.

Our relations with China have shown a recent improvement which we welcome and we are anxious to make further progress. Discussions about an exchange of ambassadors, which have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China, were resumed early this year and are continuing.

May I now repeat to the Foreign Secretary the questions which I put to him on 26th April, which he then said he would consider? First, will he arrange a Ministerial visit to China? Second, could we now reach some agreement about the appointment of an ambassador? Third, shall we take the initiative at the United Nations for the admission of China by a simple majority this autumn?

I should very much like to visit China at some time, if that were convenient to the Chinese and to ourselves here. As regards the resolutions at the United Nations which are likely to be moved, I very much doubt that an important Question resolution will be moved this year; I think that we shall be faced with another resolution of a different kind, as yet unframed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have consistently voted for the Albanian resolution to seat Communist China, and I should add that there is only one seat for one country in the organisation.

What my right hon. Friend has said this afternoon will be widely welcomed. Can he confirm that between now and the autumn Her Majesty's Government will be ready to take any further initiatives which may open up as the situation develops outside or inside the United Nations?

Yes, Sir; we shall study with great care what form resolutions may take at the United Nations. I have stated the guide lines on which we shall work.

Apart from the question whether China's representation is considered an important matter—I welcome the hint given by the Foreign Secretary on that—I understand that there is one other major obstacle to the restoration to full diplomatic relations with China; namely, Her Majesty's Government's maintenance of a consulate on Taiwan. Is a change in this position contemplated?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the consulate is not accredited to the Government of Taiwan. At the moment I would rather not add to what I said just now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he intends to have with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the refugee situation in East Bengal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the refugee situation in East Bengal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in East Parikstan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now initiate a proposal at the United Nations for a United Nations presence in and adjoining East Pakistan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Governments of India and Pakistan about the proposal to establish United Nations observers in Indian territory adjacent to East Pakistan and within East Pakistan, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

The situation created by the refugees from East Pakistan, who, according to Indian estimates, now number over 7 million, continues to give cause for concern, and the Government support the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations through the High Commissioner for Refugees to establish conditions under which their return might be effected. The Pakistan Government have already admitted a United Nations presence to East Pakistan, which includes a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have been in close touch with the Indian and Pakistan Governments about the situation, but the question of the repatriation of refugees is one which I believe is best handled through the humanitarian Agencies of the United Nations.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be glad to hear that United Nations observers have been allowed in, but, in the light of his own analysis of the causes of the refugee problem, which, as the Foreign Secretary has told the House, is due mainly to the repression carried out by the West Pakistan Army in East Bengal, and given that this repression is continuing and the flow of refugees is increasing, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that other efforts and other representations directly to the Pakistan Government are needed if we are to see some improvement in this dangerous and tragic situation?

As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman before, Her Majesty's Government are in contact privately with the Pakistan Government, and I think that this is the best way to conduct our relations. As regards dealing publicly with this matter, the Pakistan Government have accepted that there should be United Nations observers on the spot and that they should help to repatriate refugees. If we can get people on the spot who will help to repatriate the refugees and see that they are redistributed to their homes without fear, that will be a beginning, at least, of reversing the flow.

In the course of the private contacts to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, will he make inquiries about the safety of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and representations for his release? Will he make clear also the view which I am sure is held by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides, that the only possible peaceful solution of this terrible tragedy lies in a political settlement acceptable to the people of East Bengal, and that the only practical approach to this is by negotiations with Sheikh Mujib and the Awami League, which won such an overwhelming victory in the election?

As I have said again and again, the political settlement which is reached in Pakistan—we profoundly hope that it will be reached as soon as possible—must be a matter for the Pakistanis themselves. No other country outside can have any influence on this. I think it better not to discuss the results of private representations which we have made about either Sheikh Mujibur Rahman or other questions.

Since it is now, and has long been, clear that the problems of both restoring stable conditions and dealing with the refugees are beyond the capacity of the present resources available to any single Power, whether Pakistan or any other, is it not time that international action was taken on a much more substantial scale than is represented merely by the presence of United Nations observers?

We would hope so. The proposal made by the Commissioner for Refugees is that there should be a substantial number of U.N. personnel who will be responsible for the reception of refugees on the Pakistan side. The hope was also expressed that there might be a similar number of U.N. personnel on the Indian side of the frontier. So far, although there has been no formal communication to this effect, the Indian Government are not attracted by the idea.

In view of my right hon. Friends last words, can he confirm that the only hitch to the successful and effective deployment of the U.N. personnel along that dangerous border is the lack of the same sort of affirmative response from India as there has already been from Pakistan?

It must be for the Indian Government to make their own formal representations in the matter. Their public attitude is that they are not attracted by the proposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that India should publicly accept the observers, because many disinterested and objective people around the world feel that the infiltration of unfriendly elements into East Pakistan is hindering the peaceful settlement and stability in the area which all well-intentioned people so heartily long for?

I have been concerned with rather a different type of U.N. personnel. Observers to watch the frontier would be another matter. The personnel of whom I am talking are to help repatriate the refugees, to receive them on the Pakistan side of the border, and to see that they are safe in their homes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 10,000 to 30,000 refugees are still leaving East Pakistan every day, and that it is necessary for action to be taken on the cause? The cause, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is the continuing repression of the population in East Bengal by the Army. Is it not necessary that urgent action should be taken in the Security Council to deal with the cause of the situation, which is the continuing genocide in East Bengal? Is that not the reason why the Security Council and the United Nations were set up? Should not the right hon. Gentleman use that vehicle to deal with the situation?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, in the case of genocide there must first be an accusation, and that must be dealt with first in the courts in the country concerned. Then it must be dealt with in a court under the auspices of the United Nations; but no such court has been set up. Therefore, any accusations of genocide fall on barren ground.

Has there been any reduction in the rate of outflow of refugees from Pakistan into India over the past month?

I think that it is fair to say that there has been a reduction but that there are still considerable numbers moving across the frontier.

Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that we appreciate the extremely delicate situation with which he is dealing, and recognise the constructive efforts he has made to alleviate some of the problems? But many of us on both sides of the House are deeply apprehensive that during the next month or two what has been for the United Nations primarily a humanitarian problem, the relief of an unprecedented number of refugees who have left their country to go into surrounding Indian territories, may turn into a political problem and a threat to peace. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has not closed his mind to the possibility of raising the matter at the United Nations as a political and security problem? Does he not agree that another war on the sub-continent would be a tragedy of unimaginable proportions for all concerned?

The right hon. Gentleman has expressed an anxiety that we share. I do not know whether a meeting of the Security Council would assist. I think that first it must be for the Governments of India or Pakistan to decide, and neither has yet decided to make a move to go to the Security Council. It is a situation that we must watch with great care, in full knowledge of the dangers that the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out.

Might I press the right hon. Gentleman on this? Many of us on both sides feel that it is unfair and perhaps unjust to put the responsibility for raising the matter at the Security Council on the Government of either India or Pakistan, given their past relations with one another. It is of deep concern to the whole of mankind that there should not be another war on the sub-continent, and, therefore, this may be a case where a third party is better placed to take the initiative than either of the two Governments on the sub-continent.

I shall bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman says, because the situation could be very grave. At present I am not sure that the cause of peace between the two countries would be served by an exercise in the Security Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will consider seeking to pay an official visit to Pakistan and India in the near future.

I have no plans at present to visit India or Pakistan.

Will my right hon. Friend consider paying a visit as soon as possible to India and Pakistan in view of the danger of war breaking out on the sub-continent, a danger which was pointed out in the leading article in today's Financial Times? I am sure he recognises the need, as does the President of Pakistan, for a return to normality as soon as possible in East Pakistan so that the refugees can return there. Would he not agree that the activities of the Pakistan army and the return of the army to its cantonments depends on the cessation of Bangla Desh guerrilla forces? Will he persuade the Indian Government to stop the activity of those forces?

My hon. Friend refers to a visit by myself. I have often been to India and Pakistan, and I would go again if I thought that that could contribute anything to a peaceful solution. I will bear my hon. Friend's proposal in mind, but the timing would be very important.

Would the right hon. Gentleman consider expressing to Mrs. Gandhi our deep appreciation of the tremendous sacrifices made by India in helping 7 million refugees, but at the same time urging her to resist the voices clamouring for military action, as that would make the situation of the refugees even more calamitous than it is today, thanks to the activities of the West Pakistan Government?

The Prime Minister of India would be the first to recognise the great dangers of any military action, and I am sure that the President of Pakistan recognises them, too. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that we shall do everything we can to try to help in what is a very difficult situation.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that one does not have to pay an official visit to India and Pakistan to be aware of the extreme gravity of the position? Does he still adhere to the view which he expressed in the House some weeks ago that, on top of the abject misery in the many refugee camps, there may well be major famine in both East and West Bengal by October? Is he satisfied with the present state of international contingency planning on that score?

As my hon. Friend knows, a short time ago we gave £1 million to help refugees in East Pakistan. The United Nations is now taking steps to put United Nations personnel into East Pakistan, and their recommendations will be carefully taken into account. So far as any international machine is ever ready, I think that further help could be injected at comparatively short notice if the situation should deteriorate.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that hon. Members talked in East Pakistan with members of the regular Indian armed forces taken prisoner inside Pakistan and saw arms of Indian manufacture? Would not the proposed visit enable my right hon. Friend to make representations to India against such interference, which must hold back the day when normality may be restored and refugees enabled to return in confidence?

I think that everyone will agree in urging restraint on any kind of military intervention from either side of the frontier. It could bring disastrous consequences.

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

I have nothing to add for the present to what my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence told the House on 27th July in the course of the Consolidated Fund Bill Debate.—[Vol. 822, c. 267–71.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the difficulties with the present Maltese Government have in no way diminished the affection and admiration of the British people for their fellow subjects in Malta? If the Maltese object to being entangled with super-Powers, might it be worth while considering whether a new defence relationship could be worked out on a European rather than an Atlantic basis?

That could be one possibility. There are various possibilities. The North Atlantic Council is meeting this afternoon, and we hope that something constructive may emerge from that meeting.

Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary also bear in mind that it should be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister of Malta that defence arrangements for certain of our requirements under N.A.T.O. could be made in Gibraltar rather than Malta?

There are other places where the arrangements could be made, but I think that almost every hon. Member would wish that if a reasonable agreement could be reached we should stay in Malta.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make further representations at a higher level, along the lines of those made by the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, regarding the exclusion of foreign Press and independent observers from trials of Jews in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government will take to seek to alleviate the situation of Jewish and other minorities in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

We shall certainly certainly take such opportunities as may occur to make known to the Soviet authorities the widespread concern in this country at the way in which these matters have been handled. But I must repeat that we have no proper locus standi in matters affecting Soviet citizens in the Soviet Union or the practice of Soviet law courts in these cases.

Whilst I thank the hon. Gentleman for his concern, is he aware that the Canadian Prime Minister has been prepared to raise the matter with the Soviet authorities? Does he not feel that the time has come for the Government to intervene with the Soviet authorities at the highest possible level and not just at Under-Secretary level? Does he not feel that this would be a particularly appropriate time, because I am happy to say that more than half the total number of hon. Members have now signed the Motion in my name drawing attention to the problem, which is a rare show of both concern and unanimity in the House?

The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and, more recently, the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, have all expressed Her Majesty's Government's concern directly to the Soviet authorities. I do not think that we can go higher than that.

Will my hon. Friend study ways to see whether it is possible for the Government to combine or co-operate with like-minded Governments, possibly through the United Nations, to achieve a result which would be satisfactory and please a large number of people in this country?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware that early this year our delegate at the United Nations Human Rights Commission appealed to the Soviet Government to accord all Soviet citizens the right to leave their country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the continuation of talks with the Rhodesian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Rhodesia.

We are still seeking to ascertain whether an acceptable basis can be found for the negotiation of a settlement within the Five Principles. For this purpose, our exploratory exchanges with the Rhodesian régime are continuing.

Can my right hon. Friend say when Lord Goodman will be returning to Salisbury and when he expects these talks to reach Ministerial level?

No, Sir. I hope that Lord Goodman will be able to have another meeting which will take matters further, but, as I say, I am in discussion with the Rhodesian régime about this. I leave the matter there the time being.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when Ian Smith appeared on Panorama he made it clear that he had no intention of agreeing to unimpeded progress towards majority rule? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will not have a direct meeting with Smith unless there is an overt and clear change in his position and that he will not go to Rhodesia just as a sop to the pro-Rhodesian band of the Conservative Party?

That would not be my habit. In reply to the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question, any settlement would have to be within the principle of unimpeded progress to majority rule.

Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the question of the Common Market decision to be taken by the House in October will make no difference at all to the timing and the manner of the negotiations he is conducting in Rhodesia?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it is in connection with these talks that the tricky little traitor Hugh Beadle, who for so long deceived the rightful Governor of Southern Rhodesia while sharing both his roof and hospitality, has recently had his British passport renewed in Pretoria?

The hon. Gentleman had better give me notice of the latter part of that supplementary question.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it conceivable that the Foreign Secretary does not know this as a fact?

That is not a point of order.

While understanding the numerous delicate points of timing attending the right hon. Gentleman's negotiations on this question, may I ask whether he has any intention of meeting representatives of the Rhodesian Government before the end of September?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better await events. What I must be certain of before I meet any official representatives from Rhodesia is, as I said earlier, that we are talking the same language. I am not quite sure yet that we are.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has now received from the South African Government concerning the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on Namibia; and what reply he has sent.

On 28th July the South African Government conveyed to Her Majesty's Government an Aide-Mémoire on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa. This is now being studied.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is growing frustration at the inordinate delay on the part of the Government in making their view of the advisory opinion of the International Court known? Can he give a categorical assurance that before we go into recess we can expect a clear statement from the Government accepting the opinion and the implications that flow from it?

That supplementary question really does not follow from the Question on the Order Paper. However, there are specific Questions on that subject, and I must reserve my reply until we reach them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet completed his study of the findings of the International Court of Justice on South-West Africa; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government now propose to take on the judgement of the International Court on Namibia.

I am not yet in a position to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 12th July. I must ask hon. Members to await completion of the Government's study of the Court's Opinion.—[Vol. 821, c. 22–3, 8.]

What, about the Opinion, is less than clear? Does the right hon. Gentleman not appreciate that prior to the Opinion the United Kingdom was diplomatically isolated over this but arguably right in law, whereas since the Opinion it is diplomatically isolated and manifestly wrong in law?

I could not accept that generalisation. This is an extremely complicated issue, and the Government wish to have the fullest possible opportunity to study all aspects of it before reaching a decision.

Is not the situation that the result of the Advisory Opinion of the Court makes Resolution 276 of 1970 mandatory and binding on this country? As a result, ought not this country to be considering ways in which it should withdraw from economic activities in Southwest Africa? If we are not to condone violence—as the Government say they will not do—to change Southern African policy and if we are not to fulfil our obligations under international law, what are we to do to change Southern African policy?

That question illustrates the danger of jumping to conclusions. It is quite wrong to assume that this resolution is mandatory. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the arrangement to which he refers was entered into by a Government of which he was a member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held between the French and British Governments to restart negotiations for a general settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

We are in constant touch with the French Government, as with other Governments concerned, about the developing situation in the Middle East.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the proposals for an interim solution seem to have failed and that in the meantime Israel's actions in Jerusalem and Gaza, which are widely deplored, are making a peaceful settlement more difficult? Will he therefore get together with the French Government in order to try to make further progress on a general settlement along the lines of the American peace proposals, which are almost universally agreed?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern to make progress in this matter and his disappointment that we have not made it yet. But I cannot share his view that the interim proposals of the United States Government have failed. Discussions are still continuing, and we must give time to make clear whether those negotiations succeed or not.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be as well to persuade the various Arab Governments to stop fighting amongthemselves in order to put them in a posture to negotiate peace with Israel? Will he take steps to interview the various Jordanian terrorists who have crossed into the relative peace of Israel and ask them who they would like to negotiate on their behalf?

The Question on the Order Paper, as I understood it, related to specific discussions which were going on, largely between Israel and the United Arab Republic. I would not wish to comment on the wider issues the hon. Gentleman has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further action he has taken to obtain information from the Chinese Government about the circumstances and whereabouts of Mrs. Gladys Yang.

Mrs. Yang's detention has been raised with the Chinese Government on many ocasions. Our chargé d'affaires in Peking was informed in April that she was in good health but that the case was still under investigation. The Chinese Government have been left in no doubt of our concern at her detention. We shall continue to do all we can to secure her release.

I appreciate the efforts which have been made by my hon. Friend of behalf of my constituent's sister, Mrs. Yang. Is not the situation extremely unsatisfactory? My hon. Friends will be aware, I hope, that I have already addressed two Questions on this subject during the last 12 months and that I have actually visited the charge d'affaires in this country and that all we are faced with is "prolonged investigation" Does this not constitute difficulties impeding any improvement in relations between this country and the Chinese Republic?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is very unsatisfactory. As I have said, I shall continue to make our deep concern clear to the Chinese Government. The matter was mentioned informally to the Chinese Mission in London on 29th July by a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the future of Anglo-Australian relations.

I have every confidence that Anglo-Australian relations will continue to be as close and cordial in the future as they have been in the past.

Could they not be more cordial? Are there not a number of Australian communities which remain totally unprotected as a result of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's mishandling of the situation in Brussels? Would he not agree that unless the Sugar Agreement producers get some protection they could wreck the International Sugar Agreement by acting unilaterally? Is that not likely to happen since the E.E.C. is not a member of the International Sugar Agreement?

The first part of the hon. Gentleman's statement is quite untrue. There is no part of the Australian economy left totally unprotected as a result of the agreement which we have reached, and that has been explained to the House. As to the future of the International Sugar Agreement, this is a matter of considerable concern. It comes up for renewal next year, and we would hope to be closely in touch with the Community and all the other parties about the future.