asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I signed the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities on 22nd January.

May I first express my profound disapproval of the action of the German-born lady who confused Covent Garden Market with the Common Market? Secondly, may I equally register the strongest possible protest—

Order. What is the supplementary question? It is taking a very long time.

I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will register the strongest possible protest at the action of the Brussels authorities who, one and a half hours before the ink-throwing incident, arrested a group of British people who were peacefully and properly protesting against the folly of Britain entering the Common Market. Will he protest to the Belgian authorities about this?

I am sure the House will appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate incident at the beginning of the proceedings. I am sure it is well understood that no person interested in the Common Market as such was involved in that incident.

Why is it that virtually every newspaper in the country appears to have had a copy of the Treaty of Accession but that there are still no copies available to hon. Members in this House? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put this right?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, throughout these negotiations there have been copies of documents which have appeared at Brussels while technically in the draft stage or even confidential. But certainly the treaty documents, which we shall publish in two parts, will be brought before the House as soon as possible. It is largely a matter of printing. Part 1 of the treaty documents—the main provisions—will be published tomorrow.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that according to what purports to be the text of part of the accession treaty, published in The Times today, it is clear that any continuation of the special arrangements for New Zealand butter imports into this country would, after 1977, be subject to the unanimous agreement of the E.E.C. Council, thus giving a veto to every other member? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Marshall, the deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, has stated that this represents an alteration of the text to which he agreed? Is this another case where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misled this House?

The provisions in the treaty translate into the necessary legal form the substance of the agreement which we reached on 23rd June. As I explained to the House on 24th June, the important part of the New Zealand protocol is that the principle of continuity is built into the agreement, but everybody understood that questions of quotas and prices are naturally reviewed from time to time. I also made it clear to the House that, as for the future.

"There will have to be a general agreement between all the parties …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 1619.]

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those matters bearing on the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome for which Her Majesty's Government still consider their position to be reserved.

The negotiations with the European Communities have now been completed and the agreements reached recorded in the instruments relating to the United Kingdom's accession to the European Communities.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the United Kingdom's position is reserved with respect to no matters whatever? For example, what about the common agricultural policy with reference to hops? If he is not saying that, are we to understand that the treaty can be amended if our requirements are to be safeguarded?

It is rather difficult to give a short answer at Question Time to such questions as the important matter raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a few moments ago. There are other matters—for example, hops—on which a draft regulation is being considered, on which we shall be consulted before anything happens. There are matters in relation to animal health, for instance, on which there are provisions for review. I think that the House would be wise to await publication of the documents, which will be brought before it as soon as possible. At that stage, we can debate all these matters in whatever detail is necessary, at the proper time.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of most of us in the House upon the signature of the Treaty of Accession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—of most sensible Members—but could he say whether he hopes to bring forward the necessary legislation in such a form that it will not waste the time of the House for weeks and months?

I take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is not customary to comment on legislation before it is published.

We know that hon. Members opposite always sign blank cheques. Why are these documents not available? Why is there a delay in printing? Why can the daily newspapers and everyone else, apparently, have them while we have from the Chancellor of the Duchy the lame excuse that printing is holding things up? Did he not know 12 months ago that these documents would have to be printed, or has he only at this last moment seen them himself?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that only last Thursday we had a debate in which an explanation was given of the circumstances in which treaties are signed, of the interval which takes place between signature and ratification and of how the necessary documents are brought forward so that the House may consider them and the necessary legislation. It will be done all in due time and with plenty of opportunity for everyone to study all the details.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the document generally known as the Luxembourg Agreement of January, 1966, or in the absence of such a copy summarise its content and effect for the information of the House.

I have arranged for an informal translation of the text of the communiquê issued on 29th January, 1966, after a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community, to be placed in the Library of the House.

Does not the text make clear that there is, in fact, no agreement but, at best, only an agreement to disagree, or what the text calls a divergence of view? That being so, was not paragraph 29 of the White Paper inaccurate in its statement on a question

"where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous "?

As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, it is sometimes called the "Luxembourg disagreement" as well as the Luxembourg Agreement. The communiquê, a copy of which was put in the Library, records the views of the six members of the European Economic Community on the manner of reaching decisions when very important issues are at stake. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, when the Prime Minister saw President Pompidou this was one of the matters raised and established. But it is really a matter of practice. I dealt with this aspect at some length in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 15th December.

As there is a conflict of views about this agreement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in Her Majesty's Government's view, it is part of the law or established custom of the Community; and second—either now or at some later more convenient stage—will he make clear the Government's view upon it? Are they in favour of the agreement or, if it is not part of the law and custom, do they want it to become so?

If I may say so, I think that that is a fair way of putting it. It is part now of the established custom of the Community. As I have said often enough in the House, in practice the Community has never taken decisions against what a member of the Community regards as a vital national interest.

Having regard to the great importance which has in the past been attached to the Luxembourg Agreement, is the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that no reference is made to it in the Treaty of Accession, in its annexes or in the protocols? If that is so, is he saying that the doctrine of the veto, which he has advanced to defend so many of the concessions he has made—the last resort position—has no basis at all in Community law or in the actual written text of the treaty which he signed?

I made the position clear on 15th December. It is not part of the treaty. I quoted in extenso from what the present Leader of the Opposition had to say on these matters when a Labour Government were commending the British application to the House. One has to look in these days not only to the treaty but to the common law and practice which has grown up under the treaty. Until one accedes to the treaty, one cannot have the benefit of the practice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Rome Treaty; and whether he will seek to arrange for a delegation of Members of Parliament to be present to witness the signing.

The Treaty of Accession to the European Communities was signed on 22nd January by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) attended the ceremony. An invitation for representatives of other hon. Members opposite to be present was declined.

I read of the black ink used for signing this black document. May I congratulate my right hon. Friends upon declining the invitation? Why was it that all the invitations went to Privy Councillors, two of them not Members of this House, while no back bencher was invited? Is this the way the Government will work when they select the 39 Members to go to the so-called European Parliament? Will they choose back benchers as against Privy Councillors?

The hon. Gentleman's interest in attending the European Parliament will be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has received from African Commonwealth Governments regarding the proposed test of acceptability in Rhodesia.

Letters which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has received from two Heads of African Commonwealth Governments have commented on this subject.

I shall hopefully await the right hon. Gentleman's statement on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he will require from the illegal Rhodesian régime that Mr. Joshua Nkomo and the Rev. N. Sithole will be permitted to make unfettered representations to the British Commission on the test of acceptability of the Rhodesian settlement proposals.

Lord Pearce has told me that he has seen Mr. Smith about this matter. I have no reason to expect difficulties to arise.

Is the right hon. Gentleman now saying that no difficulties will be placed in the way of the Rev. Sithole in making representations directly to the commission? Is that not totally out of accord with replies which he has previously given? Further, having regard to the iniquitous state of affairs in Rhodesia—the murder of eight Africans and the wounding of 49—is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with any guarantees that the traitor Smith is prepared to give?

The latter point does not arise out of the Question. I said that Lord Pearce had seen Mr. Smith about these matters. I have not heard what they have actually arranged about the Rev. Sithole. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I saw Mr. Nkomo. I am certain that no difficulties will arise.

May I press the right hon. Gentleman on the question of the Rev. Sithole? He will recall that I and several of my right hon. and hon. Friends asked whether Lord Pearce would be free to see the Rev. Sithole and we were told, "No". Further, Lord Pearce himself indicated at the Press conference which he gave a week ago that he was not able to see Mr. Sithole. The House would greatly welcome it if representations had been successfully made to Mr. Smith. Will the right hon. Gentleman now assure the House that he will press Mr. Smith on this matter until he receives a favourable response?

I do not believe in doing other people's jobs for them. When I ask a responsible man like Lord Pearce to do a job, I leave it to him. It is for him to be satisfied that the necessary arrangements are made for him to receive from the Rev. Sithole his views. How Lord Pearce will achieve this I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman yet, because I have not heard the result of his meetings with Mr. Smith and the consideration given to it.

In view of the special pleading for Mr. Nkomo and the Rev. Sithole from hon. Members opposite, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend recalls the word of Mr. Nkomo in 1961:

"I will not rest until the rivers of the Zimbabwe run red with the blood of every white man, woman and child and every African who supports them"?

The views of Mr. Nkomo are quite well known. He has spoken of them himself quite lately. But that is no reason why he should not see Lord Pearce.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the method of operation of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments for the establishment of the Pearce Commission on the Rhodesian settlement inquiry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the timetable for Lord Pearce's commission of inquiry into the acceptability of proposals for a settlement with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Pearce Commission has now released information about the procedures it will adopt in testing Rhodesian opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Pearce Commission's inquiries in Rhodesia.

As the House will be aware, the commission has now embarked on an extensive programme of hearings which will eventually cover the whole country. Despite difficulties arising out of the present security situation, which has necessitated certain changes in the programme, the commission's work is going ahead.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we all welcome the determination of the Pearce Commission to complete its task thoroughly and with the necessary freedom of political discussion? However, to prevent any misunderstanding, can he also confirm that the Government's commitment to the present proposals is conditional on an affirmative report from the commission and that, if that is not forthcoming, Britain will retain her responsibility and sanctions will continue and Britain and the world community will have to consider the whole problem afresh?

I, too, am glad that the commission is sticking to its task. It is important that it should be able to operate in a calm and peaceful atmosphere and I trust that there is now hope of that. As for the future, I shall not speculate far ahead. The great thing is that the commission should give me its report after it has been able to consult all the people of Rhodesia, or as many as it possibly can, and then we shall be able to make up our minds.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that after the astonishing utterances of Mr. Ian Smith the other day, when he called into question the whole basis of the test of acceptability and the study of the proposals, nothing would now be worse than for the Pearce Commission to be deterred by the brutal overreaction of the Smith régime to the disturbances last week and to abandon its task in the short term instead of taking the many weeks and months which may be necessary for a complete investigation?

Yes, Sir. The commission has my full authority and the authority of the Government to carry on in Rhodesia as long as it wishes and I am glad that it is doing so. The trouble about violence is that it always causes over-reaction and one of the reasons why I have been so anxious to get a settlement in Rhodesia has been that unless we did, there could be repression and violence and repression again endlessly into the future.

Would the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Pearce Commission the view that no test of acceptability will be taken as covering the whole of Rhodesian opinion unless all detainees are seen by the Pearce Commission and not merely those who may now be seen? Would he accept that "all shades" of Rhodesian opinion should include those recently detained by the illegal Smith rôgime, including Mr. Todd?

Yes, Sir. Sir Glyn Jones saw Mr. Todd for two hours last week.

Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that the commission has adequate administrative back-up to enable people to have direct access to it without making arrangements through Rhodesian Government officials, as some reports say that in some parts of the country appointments have had to be arranged through district commissioners and the like?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in all our colonial territories in the past arrangements were naturally made through district commissioners and the heads of tribes and to some extent that is no doubt so today, but Lord Pearce is fully aware that he should not be dependent solely on these persons.

Are not sanctions becoming rather a dead letter since the American chrome purchases? Although tribal bodies may wish to make collective representations, and some have done so, in favour of the proposals, is everything being done to ensure secrecy, because of widespread intimidation, for those individuals who wish to make their statements in private?

Yes, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the summary of the proposals circulated in Rhodesia states unequivocally that everything will go on as now if the proposals are not accepted by the Rhodesian people as a whole? As the Minister of State, Scottish Office stated unequivocally in another place last week that it was the Government's intention that sanctions should continue until and unless the whole agreement was carried through, as laid down in the White Paper, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by equivocating on this matter this afternoon he is undermining his own credibility and that of the Government in this matter?

The right hon. Gentleman can scarcely give me lectures about credibility. The statement, he will recollect, in the simplified version of the settlement for Rhodesians relates to the Rhodesian constitution and I am afraid that that would go on if there were not settlement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer my question?

Order. There is to be a statement on Rhodesia later.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed educational and economic aid for Rhodesia will be additional to the overseas aid programme previously announced.

No, Sir.

Just how much say was it envisaged the British Government would have over how the money was spent? Was it intended that full details of those projects far which British money was given would be made available to the House?

Yes, Sir. The £5 million a year for 10 years to which the hon. Gentleman has referred would be spent on agreed projects and under supervision. That sum would also be matched by a contribution from the Rhodesian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that there will be no change in the status of the British Mission in Peking until further information on the case of Mrs. Yang, who is detained by the Chinese Government, has been made available to the British Chargé d'Affaires.

We shall continue to do all we can to obtain Mrs. Yang's release. As regards the status of our mission in Peking, our discussions with the Chinese Government are continuing. We have made it clear that there are no obstacles on our side to an exchange of ambassadors. It would not be helpful to our improving relations, or to Mrs. Yang's case, to introduce preconditions at this stage. We have left the Chinese Government in no doubt of the continuing public concern about Mrs. Yang and the three other British subjects who have been detained for so long in China.

I thank my hon. Friend for the tenacity which he and the Foreign Office have shown over a period of more than a year on this subject. Will he now instruct our Chargê d'Affaires, who I understand has taken up his post today, to place this important case high on his list of priorities and to secure more information for my constituent about her sister?

This is certainly one of the subjects on which we hope to make progress if an agreement on an exchange of ambassadors is reached. In the meantime we are continuing our efforts to obtain Mrs. Yang's release from detention and certainly our Chargê d'Affaires on arrival in Peking will again raise the subject with the Chinese authorities.

As to the exchange of ambassadors, why do we have to pursue American policy on Taiwan, a policy which incidentally, among other thing, is against British national interest?

I did not know that we were pursuing American policy on Taiwan. Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the Nationalist authorities on Taiwan. We maintain a consulate in Tamsui, but that consulate has dealings only with the local provincial authorities.

Is not the only obstacle to the exchange of ambassadors, which I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say was Her Majesty's Government's objective, the refusal to confirm the decision taken by Sir Winston Churchill at the conferences at Cairo and Potsdam that Taiwan was part of China? Given that the ruling that the status of Taiwan was undetermined was made 20 years ago, is it not time for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the fact and pursue Britain's interests in this matter?

These are among the many matters now under discussion with the Chinese Government. I think the right hon. Gentleman will understand that it would not be helpful to go into them in detail while these discussions with the Chinese Government are in progress.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the convening of the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics last June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the convening of the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

None, Sir. China made it clear in July last year that she would not attend such a conference. The proposal has now been overtaken by discussions in the United Nations General Assembly on a world disarmament conference.

As no progress has been made towards the five-Power nuclear disarmament conference, would the Minister agree that it is now urgent that we proceed to a European security conference on the basis of the Finnish Government's proposal? Would he assure the House that Britain will not be seen to be dragging her feet or acting as a stumbling block in the path of a European security conference and that the Government will not lay down any preconditions for attendance which would make the conference impossible?

A European security conference is a different matter. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to start making preparations for a European security conference when the Berlin Agreements have been ratified and have gone through the German Parliament.

Three different conferences have just been mentioned. Could not the British Government take the initiative on one? I am thinking of the times when Arthur Henderson led the world for disarmament instead of taking a backward step, as we now seem to be doing.

The hon. Gentleman is not being very fair. The present Government played an active part in the conference which resulted in various agreements on Berlin. He will also realise that we have been active in collaboration with our allies, particularly in N.A.T.O., in discussions on the possibility of a European security conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in view of his undertakings, if he has now managed to secure safeguards for all member nations of the European Free Trade Area; and if he will make a statement on the position of all applicant and non-applicant members in relation to the European Economic Community.

Denmark, Norway and the United Kingdom have now signed the treaty of Accession to the European Communities.

Is it not the case that E.F.T.A. represents exactly the type and form of European association that might have commanded the full-hearted support of the British people, yet it is now being broken up for the sake of Britain's political integration with the Six? Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell us exactly what, if any, new trade barriers are likely to be erected between Britain and her E.F.T.A. partners?

My hon. Friend has forgotten that one of the main aims of the Stockholm Convention was to create a situation in which the countries of E.F.T.A. could join the European Economic Community in the appropriate form. I have made many statements to the House about the consultations I have had with the E.F.T.A. Council of Ministers and I can assure my hon. Friend that at the moment everything is proceeding satisfactorily.

In the event of Norway and Denmark not acceding to the Treaty of Rome, would this not throw out of balance the whole argument for our joining? Would not this have to be looked at again?

The Danish and Norwegian Governments evidently hope that their countries will accede and that is why their Prime Ministers have signed the treaty. The treaty makes provision for the situation which might arise if one of the countries did not ratify. Presumably they might go for some form of association such as some of the other E.F.T.A. countries have done. We cannot go into these matters now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to discuss with European Free Trade Association partners the future of that organisation in the event of Norway not becoming a member of the European Economic Community.

No, Sir. Norway signed the Treaty of Accession on 22nd January.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some of us in this House feel that we have a moral responsibility towards our E.F.T.A. partners, since Britain started E.F.T.A. in 1956, for ensuring that the interests of its members are adequately looked after if they do not become members of the E.E.C.? Surely we should not look upon E.F.T.A., as the Government appear to be doing, merely as a sinking ship?

The hon. Gentleman is quite right: we do have these moral obligations and we are fulfilling them. Above all we have a moral obligation to help E.F.T.A. countries to fulfil the aim of the Stockholm Convention which was to enable an arrangement to be made with the E.E.C. whereby some members of E.F.T.A. become full members and some associate members.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that the most important item on the agenda of any E.F.T.A. meeting should be that of fishery limits in the north-east Atlantic? Can he assure the House and the fishing industry that he stands four-square with Norway and the Scandinavian countries over the proposed Icelandic extension of fishing limits to 50 miles? Has he spoken to our Scandinavian colleagues about that?

There is another Question on the Order Paper dealing with that subject. As the hon. Gentleman says, the E.F.T.A. countries are much concerned in these matters and will, I know, continue to co-operate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the new hospital at Vila in the New Hebrides.

Consulting architects recently completed the plans for this hospital and tenders are being called for, closing on 29th February.

Is my hon. Friend aware that of all hospitals in the Commonwealth, this one is most in need of replacement? Unless my hon. Friend has other information, will he see that this is given top priority?

Yes, Sir. I saw the hospital a few days ago and I agree it is not up to par. I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the staff for the fine work they do in unsuitable conditions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress was made at the recent session of the United Nations General Assembly in considering the draft Convention on Bacteriological Weapons.

The General Assembly, on 16th December, approved without opposition a resolution commending the convention and requesting the depositary Governments to open it for signature and ratification at the earliest possible date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both the present Government and the previous Government deserve credit for the successful efforts made to promote this convention? Has my hon. Friend noted that the convention will involve a significant limitation on the sovereignty of the countries adhering to it and that it is of unlimited duration?

Yes, I have noted the points my hon. Friend mentions. The Government are now consulting with the United States and the Soviet Governments about an early date for the signing ceremony.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the result of Her Majesty's Government's representations in Dublin regarding the use of the territory of the Irish Republic for hostile activities against the United Kingdom, and requests for extradition of persons implicated in criminal acts in Northern Ireland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has made to the Government of the Irish Republic on the subject of extradition of those in the Republic of Ireland wanted for trial in connection with alleged offences against British security forces in the United Kingdom.

Representations on specific extradition requests would not normally be appropriate given the strict division in the Republic, as in the United Kingdom, between Executive and Judiciary. We are, however, awaiting clarification of one particular case where an extradition request in connection with a murder charge was refused despite apparently irrefutable proof of identification.

While understanding the Toiseach's difficulty in dealing with the I.R.A. without resorting to internment which was the method of Mr. De Valera's Government, may I ask whether it has been made clear to him that we in this House are finding it increasingly difficult to justify to our constituents the continuation of the privileged position of Eire in Britain?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a chance to discuss the Irish situation with Mr. Lynch yesterday when they reviewed the situation on both sides of the Border. Details of the talks must remain confidential but my right hon. Friend took the opportunity to remind Mr. Lynch that while we welcome the measures which the Irish Government have already taken the problem of movement across the Border remains, and we would hope for the full co-operation of the Republican authorities.

Will my hon. Friend renew and increase the pressure in this direction? Is he aware that more than 110 people who are now wanted for matters connected with the Irish Republican Army are believed to be in the Republic? Was the case to which he was referring and on which he has made representations the notorious Killybegs case?

Yes, the case I was referring to was that of Mr. Gallagher. We are still seeking elucidation from the Irish authorities on certain puzzling features in Irish court procedure. For example, there was the failure of the court at Killybegs on 20th October to accept that a man wanted for the murder of a policeman in Strabane had been properly identified, even when a photograph, a full description, details of tattoo marks, fingerprints, and a witness were available. We have received a reply but no explanation to our repeated inquiries on this point.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the speech at Strasbourg last week of the Dublin Minister of Justice, Mr. O'Malley, in which he repudiated any such suggestion that the Irish Republic is being used as a base for hostilities against Northern Ireland or as a source of explosives for use in Northern Ireland?

I am aware of Mr. O'Malley's statement in Strasbourg. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister expressed his regret about it to Mr. Lynch.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that questions of this kind from hon. Members opposite only make a bad situation much worse and cause a deterioration in relations we are trying to mend? Would it not be far better if they spent more time making constructive noises about the end of internment and trying to create a decent atmosphere in which people of good will can bring the trouble to an end?

There is natural concern on both sides of the House about this matter and it is quite right and proper that it should be expressed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when a young British soldier lost his life on Friday, the fuse wire which detonated the land mine ran into the territory of the Irish Republic? Is he also aware that there were two serious incidents on the Border yesterday when 600 people in one instance and 100 people in the other case came across the Border and there was a serious confrontation with British troops? Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon the leaders of the Irish Republic the necessity to ensure that their part of the Border is properly guarded and that the terrorists are kept down there?

We are aware of the shocking and tragic death of Private Stentiford last Friday. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister drew Mr. Lynch's attention to it and suggested that, when there seemed to be a certain amount of evidence to suggest that the perpetrators of the crime were operating from south of the Border, action should be taken.

The hon. Gentleman continually refers to the conversation which took place yesterday between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic. Did the Prime Minister refer yesterday to the cratering of the roads during which operation the unfortunate and tragic death referred to by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) occurred? If so, did the right hon. Gentleman continue to pretend that this operation had some military significance or did he accept that it was simply a political act?

The matter of cratering was discussed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday with Mr. Lynch. Cratering was a necessary step in an attempt to reduce the cross-Border traffic in smuggled arms and ammunition. Details of military operations are matters for my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent talks with Mr. William Rogers, the United States Secretary of State, particularly as regards the convening of an East-West security conference.

Mr. Rogers and I discussed questions of common interest among which were those relating to European security. The details of our discussions are confidential.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the partnership of Rogers and Hammerstein produced far more enjoyable results than that of Rogers and Home? Is it not a fact that Mr. Rogers reported agreement between himself and the Foreign Secretary that discussions about holding a security conference should await the signing of the protocol in May by the four Powers? Why cannot discussion start now? East Germany and West Germany have already agreed. Is not this just another excuse for prolonging until 1973 the holding of such a conference?

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in coming to that conclusion. The whole of the N.A.T.O. Alliance felt that we could proceed to a multilateral prepara- tion directly the Berlin Agreement was through. We hoped that we would be able to do this at the last N.A.T.O. meeting but the Russians said that the treaties between Germany and Poland and Germany and the Soviet Union must be ratified, and the Germans wanted to wait until that was done.

In any initiatives which may be taken, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the recent State of the Union Message by the President of the United States in which, for very good reasons—principally the state of virtual parity in nuclear armaments and the preponderance of conventional fire-power in Europe of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries—he said that he was having to increase armaments expenditure this year? Will my right hon. Friend bear these realities very much in mind?

Yes, Sir.

Will the right hon. Gentleman go a little further? Is it not clear that the West German Federal Government have gone further than our Government in agreeing to the calling and holding of an early European security conference although they are most directly involved? If the Foreign Ministers of the Warsaw Pact Powers later this week make a further proposal about holding a conference, will the right hon. Gentleman make a more positive response and agree to the proposal of the Finnish Government to start preliminary discussions on holding a conference?

The Alliance decided that multilateral preparation should not begin until the Berlin settlement was finished, and then the Russians said that they wanted the German treaties to be ratified. Therefore, the Germans wished to wait until the treaties had been ratified before multilateral preparations began. I hope that ratification will follow very soon so that we can begin the multilateral preparations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to ratify the International Covenant on Economic Social and Culural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The obligations to be undertaken under these covenants are wide-ranging and would apply not only to the United Kingdom but also in the dependent territories. Because they are expressed in vague terms the obligations require careful study and I can hold out no prospect of early ratification.

In view of the Government's enthusiasm for signing international conventions, as demonstrated in the answer to Question No. 20, why are they so hesitant to ratify those which they have signed? Would the hon. Gentleman indicate the subjects in respect of which the Government are hesitant to submit their actions to international discussion?

We have to make sure that these covenants are applicable to all our territories and, because they are expressed in vague terms, they are difficult to define. For instance, there is mention of arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy. The Younger Commission is now sitting to decide what privacy is. Surely it would be a good idea to have that matter decided before we sign a convention about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which Mr. Quentin Jacobsen, a member of the National Union of Journalists and a British subject, is at present being held without trial by the South Africa authorities in solitary confinement in a prison cell in Johannesburg; and what action he is taking to secure Mr. Jacobsen's release.

I understand that Mr. Jacobsen has been detained under Section 6 of the South African Terrorism Act and is to appear in the magistrates court some time this week. It is likely that he will be remanded for a hearing in the Supreme Court on 20th March. Arrangements have now been made for weekly consular visits.

I deplore imprisonment without trial anywhere, but is it not par- ticularly inhuman that Mr. Jacobsen should have been kept incommunicado for so long without being allowed to receive visitors? Why did it take so long for Her Majesty's Government to send a representative to intervene in this case when a British subject was being held in such appalling conditions?

We regret the conditions in which Mr. Jacobsen has been held. But it did not take a long time for the British Government to take action. As recently as 3rd January Her Majesty's Ambassador reminded the South African authorities that, as a general principle, whenever a British subject is detained Her Majesty's Government expect either that charges should be preferred and the accused brought to trial or that he be speedily released. Moreover, my right hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the South African Ambassador the very serious view which this House takes of the detention without trial of British subjects in other countries.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not the least disturbing feature about this scandalous case is the grave concern about Mr. Jacobsen's state of health? Will he use the good offices of the British High Commission in South Africa to ensure that Mr. Jacobsen is given proper medical care?

We are concerned about Mr. Jacobsen's state of health. He is showing signs of strain as a result of his continued detention but he has made no complaints about his treatment. We shall ensure that our consul, when he visits Mr. Jacobsen, looks very closely at this aspect of his detention.

If the Government view detentions like that of Mr. Jacobsen with grave concern, why did not they protest about the detention of British subjects in Brussels last Saturday?

That is a totally different matter. I assume that the British subjects arrested in Brussels will come before the courts in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what messages were sent by his Department to the Indian Prime Minister following the conclusion of the Indian-Pakistan war; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Governments of India and Pakistan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's initiatives in connection with the situation within the Indian sub-continent.

I have continued to keep in close touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan. The details of these exchanges must remain confidential.

While the action taken is to be welcomed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that it seems a little inadequate in the light of the tremendous problems facing the Indian Government at the end of the war and the problems on her frontiers? How long will it be before the British Government recognise Bangladesh following the action of the Indian Government at the end of the war?

On the question of relations with the Indian Government, I think it is a good idea to go there and to discuss with them what they require. No request has yet come to us from the Indians. I hope to make a statement in the near future about the question of recognition. What we and a lot of other countries are anxious to achieve is reconciliation between Bangladesh and Pakistan and the creation of the most harmonious relations possible.

Would my right hon. Friend bring forward his visit to Pakistan so that he can visit the area on his way to New Delhi and then Bangkok? It would be valuable if he could have discussions with the President and the new Government of Pakistan and find ways of recognising the new régime in Dacca at an appropriate moment, which presumably will be when the Indian troops have withdrawn from that country.

I am in very close touch with the Government of Pakistan and the rulers of Bangladesh. A visit at this moment probably would not help when they have so much on their hands. However, I will consider the matter.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly is giving urgent consideration to the possibility of recognising Bangladesh. Is he giving parallel consideration to the possibility of Bangladesh joining the Commonwealth?

That will be for Bangladesh to decide when the time comes for it to make its request.

I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said about trying to bring Bangladesh and Pakistan together but will he go further and consider, under the aegis of the British Government for a change, calling together the Indian, Bangladesh and Pakistan representatives?

We are willing to help in any way we can; Mr. Bhutto and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman understand that. I hope to discuss these matters with Mrs. Gandhi in a very short time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will provide special aid for Bangladesh on the cessation of hostilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans for continuing aid and relief to the areas affected by the India-Pakistan fighting.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the resumption of aid to East Bengal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what aid he now proposes to give to what has so far been known as East Pakistan.

On 18th January my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on the position, which remains unchanged. We cannot sign aid loans before recognition, but we have been considering what the needs of the country will be and have begun discussions with the World Bank about the setting up of an aid programme. We hope that an international consortium will be established in due course, and we shall be anxious to play our part in it.—[Vol. 829, c. 215–17.]

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. I am aware of the proposals the Government made last month, but as far as one can tell the most urgent needs now are for shelter, food, medical aid and the rehabilitation of the transport services of Bangladesh. Whilst I realise that this is a problem for not only Britain but the whole world, will not the hon. Gentleman make attempts through the United Nations, as well as the proposal he has made, to see that urgent relief is given so that the country can get back on its feet again?

I appreciate the hon. Lady's concern about the matter. The United Nations assessment team is now there trying to decide what is needed, and at the request of the United Nations one of our engineering experts has gone to Dacca to assess what needs to be done about transport.

If further help during the cold weather is urgently needed, in addition to the supply of blankets, to meet the need for which there was such a magnificent response from this country recently, will the Government consider offering the services of the Royal Air Force, which has already done so much since the crisis first developed?

I am proud that we have been able to play a leading part in meeting the needs of the refugees so far. We shall certainly continue to do so through the United Nations, which I think is the best way of tackling the problem at present.

Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind that even before the recent hostilities there was a need for a vast amount of aid and advice to enable the people of East Bengal to build up the dykes against the typhoons that have caused such immense loss of life there in recent years?

I am aware that the needs of the territory are so vast that it almost beggars the imagination to think what should be done first.

Will the hon. Gentleman give us two assurances? First, will he assure us that the whole question of recognition will not be permitted, as his answer seemed to indicate it might, to hold up whatever aid can be given to Bangladesh in present circumstances, since the need is so desperate? Secondly can he tell us that the possibility of setting up an international consortium will not delay British bilateral aid or multilateral aid through the United Nations, because of the possibility of American reluctance to engage in aid at this moment? It seems to us that there might be a great delay if the normal consortium mechanism is gone through.

I very much hope that the consultations we are having with the United Nations agencies will result in their being no hold-up in the flow of aid to that territory. It is the case that recognition will stand in the way of bilateral aid between the two countries, but I very much hope that the aid from this country will reach that part of the world without any delay caused by the legal position.

I suggested last week to my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that one of the greatest needs is the simple though massive one of a vast supply of blankets. Have further investigations been made into the question, and what results have come out?

I noticed my hon. Friend's suggestion and we forwarded to the United Nations what he said. I am not in a position to say what conclusion the United Nations came to, but we shall keep pursuing the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will define the criteria for recognition of a foreign Government by Her Majesty's Government.

As has been made clear by successive Governments on a number of occasions in this House, Her Majesty's Government consider that a Government is entitled to recognition as the Government of a State when it may fairly be held to enjoy, with a reasonable prospect of permanency, the obedience of the mass of the population and effective control of much the greater part of the national territory.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that clear. Will he firmly refute recent reports in the Press which seemed to suggest that a new criterion had been adopted, namely, that a Government enjoyed the support of the population for which it was supposedly responsible? On that basis, surely there is not a single Government in Eastern Europe which should have been recognised since the war.

I do not think I should be tempted to answer the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. However, I can assure him that no new criteria are being introduced.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the criteria he has outlined apply to East Germany? If so, will he explain why the Government do not recognise East Germany?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will take steps to make it possible for a wife to travel abroad on a passport held jointly with her husband.

Under an international agreement, which was reviewed in 1963, a wife cannot travel on a family passport without her husband. There appears to be little prospect of reaching universal agreement for a change in this arrangement at this time.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is wrong for the Foreign Office to accept an international agreement whereby wives are treated as appendages of husbands? Will the Government do whatever they can to get this regulation changed?

Wives are not treated as appendages. It is merely a matter of convenience. If a family wants to go together that can be done, by international agreement, on the head of the family's passport. It would not be a service to allow ladies to travel on their husbands' passports. I for one should not like to get a lady into trouble by giving her a passport which might not be recognised.