asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the decision of the Japanese Government to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of certain goods; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about their decision to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of a substantial number of items; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Japanese Government about their decision to exclude Hong Kong from the Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of a large number of items; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has received from the Japanese Government about their intentions regarding the scope of its Generalised Preference Scheme in respect of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

The Japanese Government have informed us of their decision to add Hong Kong, along with a number of other countries and territories, to the list of beneficiaries of their Generalised Preference Scheme, but that they have felt it necessary to exclude 96 products specifically for Hong Kong. Her Majesty's Embassy in Tokyo has already made known to the Japanese Government informally our disappointment at the length of the exceptions list. We and the Hong Kong Government are now studying the likely effects on Hong Kong's trade of the exceptions, with a view to making further representations to the Japanese Government.

As these 96 items represent over 50 per cent. of Hong Kong's trade with Japan, will my hon. Friend assure me that in his forthcoming visit to Tokyo his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will point out to the Japanese that they cannot expect all countries to adopt a liberal attitude towards Japanese exports when they themselves refuse to be liberal?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. We take the view that the Hong Kong people are being unfairly discriminated against. Japan holds one-quarter of Hong Kong's entire import market and is running a trading surplus with the colony of well over £200 million a year.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend has said that this matter will be taken up again with the Japanese. Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be a great deal of support in the House for vigorous representations to be made to the Japanese Government?

Yes, Sir. It is our hope that these further discussions will lead to a satisfactory outcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the members of the Hong Kong Executive Council or Legislative Council are industrial workers.

On the Executive and Legislative Councils there are no industrial workers in the sense of manual workers, although industry and commerce are well represented.

Would it not be fair and just if the 4 million ordinary working people in Hong Kong had some representation on these Legislative and Executive Councils as a first step towards the creation of a proper, democratically elected governing body for this Crown colony for which we are responsible?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Hong Kong is run through a complex pattern of statutory boards, councils and committees. On those which are concerned with industrial employees, workers sit as individuals and representatives of trade unions. As the hon. Gentleman knows, constitutional de- velopment as we know it in other territories is not open to Hong Kong.

Will my hon. Friend tell us how many industrial workers were in the last Labour Cabinet?

Not without a great deal of research which I should find rather tedious.

Would the Minister describe the Executive Council of Hong Kong as being fully representative? What steps is he taking to make sure that it represents the totality of the people who live and work there and give it its existence?

It is of course the aim of the representation on these various councils that it should be representative. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a further choice of representatives for the Executive and other Councils on 30th June. No doubt the Governor will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now invite Bishop Muzorewa and representatives of the African National Council to visit London for talks on constitutional proposals for Rhodesia.

My right hon. Friend saw a delegation from the African National Congress on 3rd May and I myself saw Bishop Muzorewa on an earlier visit.

As a result of these recent discussions, do the Minister and his right hon. Friend now accept and understand that there can be no honourable and peaceful settlement in Rhodesia unless the African people of Rhodesia are freely and directly brought into the negotiations?

We understand the view of the African National Council on this and other matters. One reason for establishing the Pearce Commission was to make sure that we were fully apprised of the views of the African people as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last made representations to the regime in Rhodesia about the case of the Tangwena people.

The case of the Tangwena people was raised during exploratory discussions conducted by Lord Goodman in the latter part of last year.

In view of the assurance given in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) on 19th February, 1971, that matters of this sort would be taken into account in any negotiations for a settlement, will the Government bring maximum pressure to bear to protect the rights of these persecuted people?

Yes. I understand the point the hon. Gentleman has put. I should remind him that the proposals which were published towards the end of last year provided for an independent commission to examine the question of racial discrimination which would have a special duty to consider the provisions of the Land Tenure Act. We have very much in mind the kind of case to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Until my right hon. Friend makes his statement on the Pearce Report, it would be wrong for me to comment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on Rhodesia in the light of the Pearce Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to publish the report of the Pearce Committee on the proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement about Rhodesia in the light of the Pearce Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now give the dates when he expects to receive and to publish the report of the Pearce Commission

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now state on what date he expects the Pearce Report to reach him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he now expects to make a statement upon the findings of the Pearce Commission in Rhodesia before the Whitsun Recess.

My right hon. Friend has now received the Report of the Pearce Commission. It is a lengthy document and, as he told the House on 24th April, he will need a little time to consider it before publishing it and making a statement.—[Vol. 835, c. 1036.]

Is it the case—it is generally agreed that it is—that the Africans have refused to accept the proposals put forward in the joint discussions between Mr. Smith and the Foreign Secretary? If so, may we have an assurance, first, that this House will be informed before anyone else of the contents of the Pearce Report and, second, that in the event of the answer being "No" the sanctions policy will be pursued and even strengthened?

I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement on the report which has been promised. It would, therefore, be wrong for me to comment on its contents or on any matters arising from it.

If the settlement is not implemented on both sides, as I hope it will be, will not the Africans of Rhodesia come to curse those on the benches opposite and elsewhere who have incited them to reject the best available terms, which would have vastly improved their position and given them British aid?

Again, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement. My right hon. Friend has made it clear in the House that he believes the proposals provide an honest way out of what is a very difficult situation; but we must await his statement on the Pearce findings.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the honour of Her Majesty's Government is at stake over this issue? In these circumstances does he not think that in the interim the strongest possible representations should be made to the Government of the United States, which has embarked on a programme of sanctions busting on copper, a policy which could have a most deleterious effect on the under-developed countries which depend on this commodity?

I am satisfied about the position of the honour of this Government in relation to this matter. Indeed, it could be in no better hands than those of my right hon. Friend. As for the breaking of sanctions, there are many who have broken them, as I have previously indicated in the House, and I am not prepared to pick out one particular Government in this context.

Will my right hon. Friend make a clear distinction between the desirability of a settlement—and the answer to that may well be "No"—and the continuation of the Beira patrol and other political curiosities which everyone admits have not been eminently successful?

I would have thought that what Her Majesty's Government have done in regard to sanctions and the Beira patrol has been in complete fulfilment of the undertakings we gave on this matter. No decision can be announced until my right hon. Friend has made his statement, which he hopes to do shortly.

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify two points? First, when can we expect the statement from his right hon. Friend? Will we receive it before the Whitsun Recess? Does he realise that hon. Members on this side and the country generally are anxious that this matter should be disclosed soon? Second, irrespective of what the report contains, may we have an undertaking on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that sanctions will continue and, if necessary, be intensified in the period between the report being published and the Government making up their considered view on what should be the next stage in their policy on Rhodesia?

I am happy to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, in answer to the first part of his supplementary question, that my right hon. Friend has the firm intention of making a statement before the Whitsun Recess. The answer to the second part is that I cannot add further to what I have said because it is my right hon. Friend's wish to make the statement himself. I am sure that it will be his wish when making it to cover all these matters, the importance of which I recognise. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not wish in any way to shirk his responsibility of explaining in full the position of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the cost to the British taxpayer of the negotiations leading to the proposed settlement with the illegal regime in Rhodesia; and if he will also state the cost to the British taxpayer of the visit to Rhodesia by the Pearce Commission and the compilation of its report.

The final accounts are not yet available but the approximate total cost of the preliminary discussions and the subsequent negotiations in Salisbury last year is estimated at £37,000 and the visit of the Pearce Commission and the compilation of its report at £118,000.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think he will get value for money? Is not this likely to be one of the most expensive recorded "Noes" in history? Does he accept that many of us are awaiting with considerable curiosity and anxiety to discover why it has taken so long to record what one hopes will be the simple word "No" and why it should take such a large volume? Can the right hon. Gentleman at least lift the veil of secrecy very slightly and assure us that the terms of reference of the Pearce Commission have not been widened beyond those known to the House?

The terms of reference of the Pearce Commission were not widened. They were specific. As to the hon. Gentleman's point about value for money, an operation of this kind is bound to cost some money and it was certainly right that the attempt should be made. The whole House was in accord with it. The value for money of this operation was at least as great as the value for money of the "Fearless" and "Tiger" operations. I have the figures for those available if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have them.

What has the Beira Patrol cost the British taxpayer over the last seven years?

I could not give that figure without notice.

Given the fact that the British taxpayer is to foot the bill of the Pearce Report and that Ministers have said that this is a British test of acceptability, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why Mr. Smith has received a copy of the Pearce Report before any hon. Member on either side of the House?

Mr. Smith has not in fact received a copy at this stage. It is my right hon. Friend's intention to see that a copy is made available to Mr. Smith in confidence before it is published. This is in accordance with previous practice, as for instance with the reports of the Monckton Commission and the commission that dealt with matters in relation to Malaysia at a later stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the United States Government about the Arab-Israeli dispute, prior to President Nixon's visit to Moscow.

The Arab-Israeli dispute was one of the questions which my right hon. Friend discussed with Mr. Rogers when he was here last week. The details of those discussions must of course remain confidential.

Despite their obvious preoccupation with Vietnam and other issues in Moscow, will my right hon. Friend urge President Nixon to raise this matter in Moscow in view of the heavy responsibilities of both America and Russia to exercise restraint in the Middle East? Does he accept that the most likely areas for progress are where there is the least contention? Will he therefore press President Nixon to raise particularly the question of the Suez Canal and Sinai in his discussions?

Yes. I should be surprised if this subject were not touched upon at some stage during the discussions in Moscow. I observe the points which my hon. Friend has raised about this matter. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to make progress in any way possible. If the Americans and the Russians in this forthcoming meeting are able to find some common ground they will find very ready acceptance from Her Majesty's Government and co-operation in trying to find a solution to this most difficult problem.

Since a major contribution towards the improvement of Arab-Israeli relations would be if the Syrians were to desist from torturing and harassing Jews in Syria, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to suggest to President Nixon that he should ask the Russians to use their considerable influence with the Syrians in dealing with this matter?

We have every sympathy with any attempt to prevent treatment such as that to which the hon. Gentleman refers. There are many problems concerning this matter not only in Syria, but elsewhere. We have made our position abundantly apparent. We deplore any action of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. Wherever it occurs we would seek to discourage it in any way we possible can. That is abundantly clear from our statements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he now intends to propose to ensure the successful outcome of the European Security Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent developments in the German Federal Republic, he will make a further statement regarding the Government's attitude to the proposed East-West European Security Conference.

The proposal for a conference on security and co-operation in Europe concerns all members of the Atlantic Alliance. With our allies we believe that multilateral preparations should await the signature of the Berlin Agreement. But in the meantime we have separately been in touch with the Finnish Government about their offer to provide facilities for the preparatory talks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what progress he thinks is likely to be made with the ratification of the treaties between West Germany, the Soviet Union and Poland? Has he, for example, been in touch with the CDU to see whether its opposition to the ratification can be minimised? How is Britain's refusal to support the application of the German Democratic Republic to take part in the Stockholm conference, for example, where our delegate is voting against, likely to help future European security and peace?

There have been many Press reports during the last week about the debate on ratification. I think it would be premature for me to make any comment about that matter. The hon. Lady asked specifically whether we have been in touch with the CDU. Our relations must be between Government and Government in these matters. I made clear in the House some time ago that while we favour ratification, it is not for us to tell the Bundestag how it should behave concerning this matter. On the final point, I have already explained to the hon. Lady that we feel we must work in concert with our allies concerning acknowledgment of the GDR.

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the stalling of the last 12 to 18 months, Her Majesty's Government have a most regrettable reputation throughout Europe for dragging the chains on this issue? Will he try to inject some imagination into his colleagues to see that we do not have to carry this kind of reputation around Europe for much longer?

Her Majesty's Government have a much better reputation now than they had two or three years ago on this and all international matters. On this matter it is not a question of the Government dragging their feet. We are working in concert with our allies. We are as anxious as any of them to make progress in this matter, but it is for the German Bundestag to decide on ratification. When that is done and the Berlin agreements can be ratified, we can have speedy progress.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish, so that we can all read the memorandum which appar- ently The Guardian, half the States of Europe and half the foreign Press have read?

I have seen the reference in The Guardian. This document was not intended for publication. It is not a ministerial statement of any kind. It is an official working paper which does not represent the considered view of Her Majesty's Government. It is one of many papers which are circulated among our allies for mutual clarification.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what protest has been made by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the kidnapping and murder of Corporal James Elliott of the Ulster Defence Regiment to the Government of the Republic of Ireland; and what reply has been received.

We made representations to the Government of the Irish Republic as soon as news of the kidnapping was received to urge the closest co-operation in tracing those responsible. The authorities in the Republic responded and I understand that two men have since been arrested in the Republic and remanded in custody. The Government of the Republic are in no doubt of our views on this barbarous action perpetrated from south of the Border.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the ordinary law-abiding British citizen in Northern Ireland is getting very tired of the apparent failure of the Southern Irish Government properly to police the Border, to stop attacks across it and to arrest those who are known in the South to be planning murderous IRA attacks on civilians and property in the North and who, when charged, are often released on flimsy grounds, such as lack of proper identification?

I understand the difficulties expressed by my hon. Friend. We consistently urge the Irish authorities to co-operate more closely with the security forces in the North to control the Border effectively. While we welcome such steps as have already been taken, including the strengthening of police reinforcements, we still look for closer co-operation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the crux of this matter is that there is no extradition treaty to get such murderers back to be tried in the courts of the country in which they have committed these dastardly crimes? Has not the time now come for him to take up the whole matter with the Government of the Republic and to have their definition of what they say is political murder?

I think we must continue our close and strong attempt with the Government of the Republic to strengthen the provisions which they are making to secure the objectives which both the hon. Gentleman and I have in mind. On the specific point about extradition, I have nothing useful to add to what has been said previously on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further representations he has received from the Australian Government about possible British action to protect Australian interests following Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

We have had useful informal and exploratory talks at official level with the Australians on the prospects for their commodity exports which could be affected by our accession to the European Economic Community.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to understand that I am a little at a lass to understand what he has just said, especially as the Australian Labour Party has been given the definite impression that very strenuous representations have been made? Is this not the Australian Minister of Trade roaring like a lion when he is at home but squeaking like a mouse when he is abroad?

We have always been grateful for the support of the Australian Labour Party for Britain's accession to the Community. We have always understood that there are problems relating to particular commodities. Some of these problems are dealt with in the general arrangements in Protocol 16 of the Act annexed to the Treaty of Accession. These discussions are going on all the time and we had some useful and valuable discussions, as I indicated in my reply, on 7th, 10th and 11th April.

Is it not an encouraging fact for the Australian Government to bear in mind that between 1958, when the Community was founded, and 1971 Australian exports to the Community increased very much faster, in spite of tariffs, than Australian exports to this country?

Certainly there are anxieties about particular commodities. I think that the Australian Government are right in the general view which they have expressed that it will benefit Australia as well as the United Kingdom and Europe when enlargement takes place.

Would it not be more honest to admit the truth that there are no safeguards for Australian interests, that Australian trade will be treated as that of a third country by Britain if and when we join the Common Market and that for Australia this means that in place of preferential access to the British market she will have to face a common external tariff? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect Britain's exports to Australia to be able to continue to enjoy the preferences they now receive?

What would be dishonest would be to give Australians the impression that the right hon. Gentleman was expressing the real truth. Everyone understands the position perfectly well. The safeguards are there in Protocol 16, and there are satisfactory arrangements which we have developed for consultations with the Australian Government and the Australian people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will be attending the meeting of Common Market Ministers on 26th May.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I expect to visit Luxembourg at the end of this month when there will be meetings of Foreign Ministers of the Ten.

At these meetings will my right hon. and learned Friend and the Foreign Secretary speak up very clearly on behalf of those members of EFTA who are not joining the Community? Does he recall the communique, issued at the end of the EFTA meeting, which refers to the problems of crucial importance to them which remain unsolved? Is not the best way to get the Six to come to heel over this and many other outstanding issues to tell them clearly that this House will not have a Report and Third Reading of the European Communities Bill until all outstanding matters are settled?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I attended the meeting of the EFTA Council of Ministers at the beginning of May. The communique was issued thereafter. We are all satisfied with the way things are proceeding at the moment. We indicated the problems which were still outstanding in the negotiations with the Six and we indicated the support we would give to our EFTA partners. Their negotiations are their responsibility, but they know our views and they know the support they will receive from us.

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman perhaps take with him as a brief the excellent weekend speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and try to raise some of the points which he put forward? Everyone is interested in those matters.

One of the items for discussion by Heads of Governments at the summit conference at the end of October will be the external relations and responsibilities of the Community. That is an item on the agenda which will certainly cover problems of increased contributions to the developing countries of the world. It is a matter to which we, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), attach considerable importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent representations he has received from the United States Government relating to the alteration in trade patterns which they anticipate after Great Britain joins the European Economic Community.

The United States Government have from time to time made known to Her Majesty's Government as well as to the present Community their interest in the effects of enlargement on their export markets.

I appreciate that answer. Will my right hon. and learned Friend do his best to ensure that there is a reasonable compromise between our colleagues in Europe, ourselves and the United States over trade matters, so that we do not further encourage isolationist thinking in the United States?

Certainly, I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I envisage that next year there will be a round of discussions in which we shall be involved, under the auspices of GATT or OECD, which we must all hope will encourage further liberalisation of trade.

Has not the movement towards protectionism in recent years in the United States been basically caused by the inward-looking, protectionist and imperialistic policies of the European Economic Community in relation to—[AN HON. MEMBER "Nonsense".]—preferential trading agreements instead of multilateral trade agreements?

United States trade with the Community has been consistently expanding and the United States has large surpluses in its trade. There are certainly problems. It would be unfair to criticise the United States for its protionist policies. To some extent we are all involved from time to time in protecting local interests. But certainly we wish to encourage the United States and everyone else to liberalise trade still further by reducing non-tariff barriers as well as tariff barriers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date two British diplomats were asked to leave Berne in respect of bribes alleged to have been offered by them on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to officials of a finance company; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the answer given on 20th March to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State.—[Vol. 833, c.233–4.]

However pure-minded the object—and we do not doubt that—does not the offer of bribes by British diplomats inevitably give offence to the countries in which they are accredited? Is it worth while for the amount of information received?

My hon. Friend is mistaken. Bribes were not offered by the embassy staff to anybody. If information of value is offered to us for the detection of criminal offences against United Kingdom law it would be perverse and wrong not to accept it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Communist aggression in Vietnam, with special reference to Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities under the Geneva Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent approaches he has made to the Geneva Conference Co-Chairman on Indochina in regard to the armed North Vietnamese invasion of the Republic of Vietnam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Communist aggression in Vietnam in the light of his co-chairmanship of the Geneva Conference.

On 10th May my right hon. Friend again asked the Soviet Ambassador to convey a formal appeal to Mr. Gromyko to join him in reconvening the Geneva Conference. My right hon. Friend awaits Mr. Gromyko's reply.

Does not the Soviet Co-Chairman's refusal of Her Majesty's Government's request to reconvene the Geneva Conference expose the Soviet Union as an abettor of aggression? Is it not the case that the Soviet Union has been the main arms supplier of Hanoi? What help is being given, and can be given, to refugees who have every reason to fear Communist domination?

On the first point, my right hon. Friend is still awaiting Mr. Gromyko's reply and I think it would be wrong to try to anticipate what that reply might be. I agree with the second point raised by my hon. Friend about refugees. I hope to touch on that during the debate which I understand we shall be having later.

As the reply has been delayed and as, when it comes, it may be unfavourable—and that, unfortunately, is to be expected—will my right hon. Friend consider with his right hon. Friend the possibility of raising at the United Nations the matter of the North Vietnamese invasion of the Republic of Vietnam?

There are all sorts of possibilities in regard to this. Her Majesty's Government are anxious to help to promote a settlement. I should like to put this in its proper context in the speech I hope to make later.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state factually and precisely who was responsible for the non-implementation of the Geneva Agreement on the carrying out of full Vietnamese elections? What reason is there for either the British Government or the Soviet Government—or anyone else—to suppose that any similar undertaking would be honoured in the future and not be breached as it was by the American Government?

There have been various charges and counter-charges in regard to the agreement about Vietnam. I do not propose to pass judgment here this afternoon. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await the speech which I hope to make later, when I shall try to put the whole matter into its proper context.

Will my right hon. Friend remember that 600,000 Vietnamese have been driven from their homes by the Communist offensive which has been backed to the hilt by the Soviet Union? Will he remember that the British medical team at the children's hospital at Saigon did excellent work earlier in the conflict, and will he now do everything he can to recruit a fresh medical team to help this battered country?

On the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, I think that the position is if anything worse than he quoted, which emphasises the importance of his point. Certainly the Government will do all they can to help alleviate suffering in the way my hon. Friend has indicated.

Has not the situation really arisen from the word "go" because the Americans never accepted the Geneva Accord? Is it not clear that the real aggressor in Vietnam is the presence there of Americans who have continued with their bombing and destruction of North Vietnam and the devastation of people in both North and South Vietnam, and that the most important contribution which the Government can make is to urge the Americans to leave Vietnam at the earliest possible moment?

I find that an extremely prejudiced attitude on this very difficult issue. Her Majesty's Government will try to take an objective view in trying to bring about a settlement of this dreadful problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received, in his capacity as Co-Chairman under the Geneva Agreement, concerning use by the United States Government of pellet bombs designed to kill individuals for dropping on the civilian population of Hanoi.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations the North Vietnamese Government has made to him in his capacity of Co-Chairman of the Geneva Convention about the bombing by the United States of America in the war in Vietnam.

None, Sir.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman take note of what has been happening in Hanoi? A constituent of mine, Dr. Philip Harvey, has been in Hanoi in the last month and has seen pellet bombs dropped on individuals, has seen the victims in hospital and has seen houses destroyed. As we are supposed to be an ally of a civilised country which is in breach of international law, would it not be appropriate if the Government made some sort of protest to the United States about this matter?

It is not for us to make protests about individual types of weapons used. One could just as well protest about the terrible damage caused by the heavy artillery used by the North Vietnamese. As I see it our duty is to try to find some means of making progress towards peace, and that is the important thing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about this grave international crisis, in which so far this country has said precisely nothing? Are we to say nothing about the inhuman and cruel bombing, inhuman and cruel by any sane standards? Are we to do nothing to stop this confrontation which is being deliberately encouraged by Nixon?

On the first point, we certainly deplore casualties caused by both sides. But we are not prepared to choose one side to attack in this regard. The North Vietnamese are the aggressors in this case and have invaded the South. I hope, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye later today to develop Her Majesty's Government's position on this matter, and I will certainly say something about this then.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the South Vietnamese have every right to invoke the support of their allies in tactical close air support operations in defence of their territory and, by interdiction, to prevent the incursion of aggressive armaments which imperil their livelihood?

My hon. Friend has made clear the unfairness of questions from the Opposition in regard to this matter. It is clear that there are very great difficulties in this conflict. Her Majesty's Government are trying to find ways towards peace. That is why I do not want to become involved about particular questions of armaments, on either side.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with Mr. James Mancham, and other Seychelles leaders in London, on the question of a constitution for the Seychelles.

Neither Mr. James Mancham nor any other Seychelles leader who may now be in London has sought any meeting with me on the question of a new constitution for the Seychelles.

Have the Government taken the prudent precaution of talking to the Opposition dissident groups in the Seychelles and at least hearing their views?

The present constitution was agreed by all the political leaders in the Seychelles at the London Conference in March, 1970, and it came into operation in October, 1970. It has been going for 18 months and there is no reason to change it now.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the great majority of people in the Seychelles are in favour of closer ties with Britain, and will he consider ways and means of sustaining their wish in this matter?

We very much reciprocate the desire to be in the closest touch with our co-citizens in the Seychelles. Any question of changing the constitution is, of course, another matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet Government regarding the recent harassment of Soviet Jewish scientists who have sought to join relatives in Israel in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Soviet Government are well aware of our views on the general issue in question. We have no proper standing to take up individual cases, and indeed this might be counter-productive.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Jewish prayer book sent via BEA to Leonid Slepak, the son of one of Moscow's most harassed Jewish scientists, has been impounded by the Soviet authorities and that, unless the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) has other information, it remains in the Moscow customs shed?

I take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman on his initiative in this matter. We are hopeful that the detention of this prayer book on the ground that it should have been sent freight or something like that is only a matter of official bumbledom and we are endeavouring to clarify the position.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I spoke to the elder brother of the boy concerned on the telephone to Moscow about an hour and a half ago and that I shall be telephoning him again later this afternoon? Will my hon. Friend promise to take up this matter at an early stage with the Soviet Ambassador should the official bumbledom become fossilisation?

I have taken note of my hon. Friend's comments. I very much hope that we will be able to help but it would be premature for me to say now exactly what we would do.

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

At the present moment my right hon. Friend has no plans to do so. I paid an official visit to Chile in March and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs have both visited Chile for the UNCTAD conference.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that something should be done to repair the damage done by the Minister for Trade who, I am told, in the two and a half days he deigned to spend there, failed to call on one member of the Chilean Government although he had time to dine with the Anglo-Chilean Chamber of Commerce? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of doing something to assist trade with this developing country by, for example, reviving export credit guarantees?

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair in that supplementary question. My right hon. Friend went there specifically to attend the UNCTAD conference. No discourtesy of any kind was meant to the Chilean Government. I spent some time in Chile and had long discussions with the President and other members of the Government. Our relations with that country are extremely cordial and we are seeking to do everything we can to encourage trade between our two countries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the enormous fund of good will towards Britain not only in Chile but in other Latin American countries? Britain's initiative in arranging a seminar this week on Latin American affairs is a welcome move on the part of all who wish to see closer ties between Chile and Britain and the other Latin American countries and Britain.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks. This seminar could be an important landmark in relations. It has been widely welcomed in the countries of Latin America and I hope that its outcome will be a great success.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he will make a statement on his meeting with Dr. Patrick Hillery, the Irish Republican Minister of Foreign Affairs, in London on 27th April.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) on 8th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 266.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the Foreign Secretary's meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister, Mr. Lynch has set up an all-party committee on constitutional change and that hon. Members of good will look confidently to him for further constructive measures? On the other hand, may I ask the Minister to say what steps the Foreign Secretary has indicated Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to take to lessen disunity in the whole of Ireland?

That is a very large topic to discuss by way of question and answer. Our position is clearly that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and forms an integral part of it. Any question of change would be a major matter of policy which I could neither discuss nor consider replying to at Question Time.

Will my right hon. Friend make known to the Southern Irish Government that repeated unfriendly statements indicating their continued desire to effect the accession of part of the territory of the United Kingdom, namely Ulster, against the will of the majority can do nothing but harm in the present situation?

Yes, statements of that kind do nothing but harm; but, on the other hand, the Government of the Republic are seeking to try to help in such ways as they can with regard to some very difficult problems at present. I would wish to say nothing to exacerbate those problems still further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development at Santiago.

The committees and working groups were due to report to the conference in plenary session in the course of last week. Many points of disagreement remain and intensive consultations to resolve these will take place before the conference ends this weekend.

Is it not shameful and a disgrace to our people that Great Britain is being seen at this conference as the leader of the "have" nations and refusing to give any concessions whatever to the developing countries? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that we are now the only nation not accepting the giving of 0·7 per cent. of our gross national product for technical assistance and overseas aid? Will he recall the two Ministers and get the Foreign Secretary to rebrief them about the attitude of the average person of this country to overseas aid?

The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade went there at the beginning and my noble Friend the Minister of State has been there for a week and has made an important contribution to the debate. That attendance of Ministers is far above the average of most other countries. As to the amount of our aid, it is not true that we give only 0·7 per cent. We give 1 per cent. of our gross national product in aid, and this is superior to the performance of most other developed countries.

Is it not to the credit of Her Majesty's Government that in addition to playing a useful role at the current conference they have brought into operation in a very effective way the decisions of previous conferences about the Generalised Preference Scheme? Does not that contrast favourably with the actions of other developed countries, some of which have brought such schemes into effect in only a half-hearted way and others not at all?

Our Generalised Preference Scheme has been operating since the beginning of the year. We have to keep in step with others. It is not some kind of competition to see which nation can get ahead. In all these very complicated matters, therefore, there is bound to be what must appear to enthusiasts to be rather slow progress; but progress is being made.

Will the hon. Gentleman please pay the House the compliment of understanding what he is talking about when he talks about official figures for overseas aid? The House is perfectly well aware that, apart from America and France, which has hovered between 0·6 per cent. and 0·7 per cent., we are about the only country which has refused to accept the target. Will he please answer two specific questions as we are now moving into the week of rather crucial decision in Santiago? First, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government abstained on the resolution relating to opening up insurance to developing countries? Second, is it the case that Her Majesty's Government are refusing to support a proposal for the link with special drawing rights by saying that the matter requires further study?

On the amount of official overseas aid, in common with some other countries we have not accepted that our official aid should be 1 per cent. of gross national product. The right hon. Lady knows that. It is not suitable in our view to tie ourselves down to a proportion between official and private aid. That depends upon the balances in the economy of the donor country. We are largely a private enterprise country. We believe that private enterprise has a great deal to contribute.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have an answer to my two specific questions?

Order. That is not a point of order.

With regard to the detail of the decisions of the conference, which has not yet ended, if the right hon. Lady would be kind enough to table those questions we could answer them in detail. A White Paper will be presented at the end of the conference setting it all out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government, having rejected the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Government's draft treaty on the abolition of the means of waging chemical warfare, will submit a British draft to the Geneva Conference.

Chemical weapons were a major subject of discussion in the recent session of the conference of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. The committee is giving the most serious attention to the questions involved in prohibiting these weapons. It is the strongly held view of many delegations, including our own, that the next step should be expert technical discussions on means of solving the difficulties of definition and verification in a way which would satisfy the requirements of all countries involved.

Is it not important that Britain should be seen to favour the widest possible agreement to contain the manufacture, testing and use of these weapons? Could not this usefully be achieved by our proposing a draft to the Geneva Conference? If such an agreement could be reached, it would be not only extremely beneficial but would improve the chances of reaching East-West agreement in Europe for European security.

I have given very close attention to this matter. I visited the Geneva Conference just before it went into recess. I have looked at this matter very carefully. We were very glad to support the initiative taken by the previous Government in regard to biological weapons and to bring that to a conclusion. There are other very difficult aspects about chemical weapons, and we are seeking to find ways to solve them. We thought that a meeting of experts would be the best way at this stage, although I do not rule out tabling some text at a later stage if this is appropriate.

I appreciate the technical difficulties. Would it not be an earnest of good will on the part of the United Kingdom Government if they now stated unequivocally their acceptance that the Geneva Convention extends to CS gas?

The hon. and learned Gentleman raised this point before, and I and others have had to explain to him the complications and problems arising in this matter. I cannot add to the matter at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to arrange a conference in the United Kingdom to follow up the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and to be particularly related to the encouragement of industrial manufactures in the underdeveloped world.

I am sure that the international conference which the Society for International Development is organising at Oxford in September, 1973, on the development relationship between Europe and the Third World will give careful attention to this question. There will be full British participation in this conference.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's reply. Is he aware that the developing countries can never expect to improve their lot by produce of agriculture and commodities alone which at present account for 70 per cent. of their total earning capacity? Up to one-third of their populations is unemployed. They need manufactures. They need trade rather than aid. Britain as a manufacturing nation could set an example by instituting such a conference.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Our record in receiving the manufactured articles of developing countries is a good one. There is at present before the House the Overseas Investment and Export Guarantees Bill, and we have introduced other Measures in the last two years to facilitate the further expansion of the manufactures of developing countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future work of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir Bernard Braine) on 11th May.—[Vol. 836, c. 426–7.]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the running-down of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys by up to one-third of its staff and the transfer of these services to private enterprise will not only cause a great shock among those who support aid services in Britain but will also bring, the Government in for a great deal of criticism? What are the criteria which will be applied to determine which work will stay with the directorate and which will go to private enterprise? Why are not the Government saying that the directorate will remain in operation after 1979?

The decision to alter the rôle of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys was taken in pursuance of the Government's policy not to undertake directly within the central Government activities which can be handled outside. We appreciate that a certain amount of anxiety is caused to the staff, but they will bear in mind that this work will go on at least until 1979 and we have been very impressed by the responsible attitude shown by the staff. We hope that redundancy will be avoided so far as possible by normal staff reductions.

Why was it thought appropriate to make this announcement in a Written Answer in the light of the fact that this is one of the minor but very significant bits of hiving-off of the Tory Government? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that what his right hon. Friend has very clearly in mind is that it is the profitable parts which are to be hived off leaving the unprofitable part with the directorate?

My right hon. Friend was conscious that the decision and the report had been rather long delayed and he was, therefore, anxious that a decision should be given. That is why it has been done in this way. The question of what part will be hived off and what part will not be depends to what extent we find that private mapping resources are capable of undertaking the work which is given to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware of the difficulty and inconvenience caused in relation to passports by the British Nationality Act, 1948, to British subjects born overseas in former British dominions at a time when their fathers were serving in the British forces; and if he will initiate legislation to ease their position.

All British subjects applying for passports must produce evidence of their citizenship and it is not usually difficult to obtain satisfactory documents. I am always willing to examine any specific examples of difficulty that may be put to me.

My hon. Friend is aware of the difficulties of the specific case of my constituent which I referred to him and which he considered with his characteristic courtesy and helpfulness. Would it not be possible to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that the British Nationality Act could helpfully be amended simply by incorporating a provision giving British citizenship to people born in territories then comprised within the United Kingdom and colonies whose fathers were in the service of the Crown?

My right hon. and learned Friend will bear in mind that since 1st January, 1949, a child born overseas to a British Serviceman or other Crown servant who is himself a United Kingdom citizen automatically becomes a United Kingdom citizen. All that we are saying is that the father should prove who he is, because not all servants of the Crown hold United Kingdom citizenship.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Immigration Act of last year and, indeed, the very offensive concept of patriality which was introduced into the law by that Act causes much more difficulty and offence to British subjects trying to get into the United Kingdom than does the problem raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith)? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that in many countries, particularly in Africa and Asia, the Immigration Act and the concept of patriality which his Government introduced are regarded with very deep misgivings indeed?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman must know, the problem of patriality is a quite different question from that raised by my right hon. and learned Friend and is, I am thankful to say, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.