asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the result of the negotiations between the International Transport Federation and the Australian Waterside Workers' Federation in the negotiations with the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony Government concerning the future employment of Gilbertese seamen from the training ship "Teraaka" at Tarawa.

The parties to the negotiations were the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Overseas Seamen's Union, advised by the General Secretary of the International Transport Workers Federation, and a consortium of German shipowners which is the largest employer of the colony's seamen. A satisfactory three-year agreement was concluded.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware how important it is that the employment which is provided by the training at this school is maintained in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands?

I agree that it is extremely important to the islands. I am glad to be able to take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to Mr. Charles Blyth, the General Secretary of the ITF, and the Organiser of the Waterside Workers' Federation of Australia for their help and understanding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about future relations between the United Kingdom and Uganda, with particular reference to British subjects resident in Uganda, future aid and Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Uganda at the forthcoming Commonwealth Conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Uganda as it affects the interests of British subjects.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the future of British nationals and assets in Uganda.

We hold Uganda responsible for the safety and property of our nationals. There have been meetings with the Ugandan Government on compensation for the property of British subjects expelled from Uganda and the transfer of their assets. In the light of these and future discussions we will decide the way in which the matter will be raised at the coming Prime Ministers' Conference. As to aid, I have nothing to add to my statements on 30th November and 19th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 223–24; Vol. 848, c. 1126–34.]

I appreciate the difficult and delicate task facing the Government in what is, after all, a very human tragedy, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that bitterness and resentment would be felt by many people in this country if it was thought that we were condemning racialism in one part of Africa yet not appearing to do so in Uganda and that there will be no more economic aid in cash or kind unless and until there is a dramatic reversal in the Ugandan Government's policy?

Racialism is equally repellent wherever it occurs. I have made the position clear about aid. Unless there is a change of policy in Uganda, aid will not be sent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that the intolerable conduct of the Ugandan Government is totally alien to the interests of the Commonwealth? Will he undertake to make that representation to other Commonwealth leaders?

Yes, Sir, I confirm that. We must deal with these matters in order. We must have the conversations with the Ugandan Government to see whether we can get compensation, both for the Asian passport holders and for our own people. That having been done, I will consider the best way to convey our feelings to the other Commonwealth Governments.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give some estimate of the total value of these assets and say whether any of them have yet been taken over by the Ugandan Government? Are the Government considering further steps to bring pressure to bear on that intolerable Government?

I do not think that without notice I can state the total value. I can tell the hon. Gentleman what has been done. We have listed the property that has been notified to us, first in the High Commission. Now, again, we have asked all those who have come here, both Asians and British, to list their property with us. Therefore, when we reach the next stage of these talks, we shall know the total value and the individual claims. I will tell the hon. Gentleman the figures when I get them.

Can the Secretary of State say anything about the way in which the discussions over compensation in these negotiations are going? Have we had any reactions yet from the Ugandan Government?

I shall not answer the hon. Gentleman's last question because that is a matter for the Commonwealth and for the Secretary-General among others; it is he who issues the invitations. The position is that the talks have begun and we have asked for a date to be set for further negotiations. I will inform the House when we have a date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects now remain in Uganda.

The size of the British community has not altered significantly since my right hon. Friend gave his last estimate on 19th December and remains at around 3,000, of whom some 450 are Asian United Kingdom passport holders, exempted from the expulsion order of 9th August.—[Vol. 848, c. 1126–34.]

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that those 3,000 people are not in immediate physical danger? Should they become so in future, have the Government any plans for getting them out?

I have no reason to believe that they are in immediate danger. However, the security and safety of British citizens in Uganda is of paramount importance to Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes to pay an official visit to the Pitcairn Islands.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Pitcairn at the present time.

What do the Pitcairn Islanders say to the Government about French nuclear tests in the Pacific?

There is another Question on the Order Paper about that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he anticipates further preparatory talks relating to the proposed European Security Conference; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statemen on the progress of the talks at Helsinki to prepare for the European Conference on Security and Co-operation.

On 15th January the preparatory talks for a Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe were resumed in Helsinki. Various proposals have now been tabled dealing with the agenda and the committees which will be needed to do the detailed work.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the best hope of resolving future conflicts would be by achieving agreement on common standards in such matters as freedom of movement? Will he find ways of conveying to the Soviet Government that some of us who have long advocated a positive response to the Soviet initiative are very concerned about such cases as that of Lazar Liubarsky, who is about to be tried secretly simply for saying that people are entitled to make their home where their heart is?

Yes, Sir. I think that the time will come when we can make these points. However, at the moment we are concerned with getting an agenda and the essence of the agenda is that the items should be simple and that we should have an agenda which will not allow either the Soviet Union or the Western Powers to veto any particular subject.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that any advance has been made by the Soviet Union since the talks resumed about the freer movement of people, ideas and information between all European States? Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the proposals put forward 10 days or so ago by the Belgians, Italians and Danes represented the view both of NATO and the EEC?

The answer to the last part of the question is "Yes". The proposals were put forward on behalf of NATO and the EEC. As for the movement of people, I have seen the tentative agenda and it appears that the matter would be satisfactorily covered.

When it arrives at his desk, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look at the document discussed in the Council of Europe on East/West relations, which I believe supports very much the almost bipartisan policy in this House on the problem of East/West relations?

Yes, Sir. I think that the House will be broadly agreed on how we should approach this matter. We want to identify certain areas of interest to the East and West to try to see whether we can explore and exploit them to common advantage. That has been our motive all the way through and that of the Alliance.

Does my right hon. Friend's earlier answer mean that there is a real hope that NATO and the Community will speak with one voice throughout the conference?

Yes, Sir. They have so far.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy in the Middle East.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government in the Middle East remains to do all they can to help towards a peaceful settlement on the basis of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the signing of the cease-fire in Vietnam may lead to the intensification of the efforts of some arms salesmen to increase their supplies to the Middle East? Will he give an assurance that we will do everything possible at this moment to see that the arms balance is not upset?

We judge requests for military equipment from any participants in the Middle East conflict on their merits. We would not sell arms which in our view would increase the possibility of any resumption of hostilities. Of course we deplore all terrorism. Various suggestions have been put forward about how the nations can combat it. My right hon. Friend will have taken note of the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Will the Government abandon their policy of ganging up with the French at the United Nations on Middle East affairs in a way which undermines Resolution 242, to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, bearing in mind that if the acceptability of Resolution 242 to all parties involved is destroyed, so will the prospects of peace in the Middle East be?

The basis of the hon. Gentleman's question is entirely fallacious. In our view Resolution 242 remains the generally agreed basis for a settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute and until a more constructive resolution can be put forward, that will be the basis to which we adhere.

Nevertheless, is it not time that there was a completely new initiative, certainly under the auspices of the United Nations, based on the general acceptability which still continues of Resolution 242 and the availability of Dr. Jarring's good offices? Have the Government any intention of instigating such an initiative, possibly through the Secretary-General?

The right hon. Gentleman's question is in two parts. On the one hand he said that there should be a completely new initiative. On the other hand he said that we should adhere to the basis of Resolution 242. On that basis we will certainly, with other countries interested in the dispute, do our utmost to achieve a peaceful settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement regarding negotiations with Iceland on that country's unilateral extension of its fishing limits to 50 miles; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 22nd January.—[Vol. 849, c. 33–39.]

As it may eventually prove necessary for the Royal Navy to intervene, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what steps are being taken to organise support of all types and descriptions from other NATO members?

We are in the closest touch with NATO members and the Community on these matters. We are trying to get a peaceful negotiation started with the Icelanders. My hon. Friend will remember, and perhaps I should remind the House, that the International Court ordered us to restrict our catch to 170,000 tons. We have offered a 25 per cent. reduction on the 1971 catch. That is well within the International Court's ruling. We have made that offer with the consent and co-operation of the industry.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to extend, on behalf of all Members representing fishing constituencies, our deepest sympathy to the Icelandic people in their sad disaster caused by volcanic activity on the Westmann Islands? But what is happening to our negotiations with West Germany? Some months ago Germany took the same outlook as ourselves. In fact, West Germany was more belligerent than we were. There were meetings in Hamburg and elsewhere. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman that we would meet the West Germans at Bonn to discuss a joint policy. What is happening? Are they joining us in protesting to the Icelandic people?

I think that we are entirely in line with the German Government. Certain unofficial proposals were made in Germany to the effect that they might restrict imports of Icelandic fish into Germany, but that has not been adopted by the German Government so far. We are in complete line with the Germans on this matter.

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that one wants to de-escalate as much as possible the conflict with Iceland. Does he agree, however, that the time may come when we shall have to get the Council of Ministers together to work out a system of perhaps boycotting all Icelandic fish products if Iceland will not adhere to the International Court's ruling?

Of course we do not want to have to do that. We do not want to have to do anything that will push up the price of fish in this country. We have the assurance from the European Economic Community that the EEC will not apply concessions to Icelandic fish products under the recent trading agreement with Iceland unless there is a continuing solution to the fisheries dispute. So the European Communities are in line with us in this matter.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that this foreign registered tug is costing the British taxpayer more than £1,000 a day and that this foreign registered tug is owned by a British company that has extensive interests in the British fishing industry? Would it not be a far better use of British taxpayers' money and an exercise for the Royal Navy if one of Her Majesty's ships were undertaking this vital task of giving aid and protection to British seamen?

For the hon. Gentleman's information I can say that the vessel has been chartered by the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that it will shortly become wholly British-owned and registered. That would be much the most satisfactory solution of the problem.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that we should like to see all ships flying flags of convenience subject to asset stripping by Her Majesty's Government and brought under our control? Since the tragic volcanic eruptions in Iceland, have there been any further incidents of harassment of any of our vessels? If there have not been, is it not right that we should point out to the Icelandic Government that the moment the disaster occurred, our mother ships were dispatched in the direction of the tragedy to give assistance if needed, and that that is the sort of co-operation that we are prepared to give to the Icelandic people and that they in turn should consider some of our interests?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Immediately the disaster took place we sent a message to the Icelandic Prime Minister offering any help that the Icelandic people might require. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that our vessels set course towards the volcanic island to see whether any help could be supplied. There have not been any incidents in the last few days and I hope that there will not be any more. Almost every day I am in touch with the Icelandic Foreign Minister trying to settle a date for negotiations to start.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of any contact made by Her Majesty's Government with the German Democratic Republic with a view to establishing diplomatic relations with the Government of that country; and if he will make a statement.

The British and GDR officials began talks in London about the establishment of diplomatic relations on 23rd January. These are still continuing. This is in accordance with the decisions of the NATO Council of Ministers, set out in their communiqué of 8th December 1972.

When does my right hon. Friend expect these discussions to be concluded? Is it the intention of our NATO allies that recognition of the German Democratic Republic should take place on the same day, or will France and other countries pre-empt and recognise before we do?

We are all moving broadly together on this issue because there is no specific importance to be attached to particular dates. I hope that we shall be able to exchange ambassadors by the summer after the two German States have ratified the general relations treaty.

May I press my right hon. Friend to make certain not only that we keep in step with our colleagues in the Community but that we let it be widely known that we are doing so?

Yes, indeed. I hope it is already widely known, but my hon. Friend's question will draw attention to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters are on the agenda for the next meeting of Common Market Foreign Ministers.

I anticipate that among the items likely to be discussed by the Council will be the question of the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Norway and the European Community and certain questions concerning a number of Mediterranean countries.

I fully sympathise with my right hon. Friend's reported remark that the Council of Foreign Ministers is not the place to discuss Norwegian fish fillets. Nevertheless, will he take a strong line in support of Norway's case, particularly that negotiations should be concluded by 1st April, which is an important date? Secondly, will he urge the Common Market to give sympathetic tariff consideration to aluminium and particularly to Norwegian fish exports as we do not want the price of fish to rise in this country, and generally will he encourage the Common Market to be generous rather than vindictive towards Norway?

Yes, Sir. We hope that an agreement will be negotiated by 1st April. We certainly have the strongest interest in Norwegian fish fillets and that I hope I have made clear—whether in the right or wrong place—and I shall go on making it clear.

Information of this kind may always be elicited by the timeous placing of questions, but the opportunity for putting a series of questions is limited. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore agree that it might be a constructive and helpful method if the Government were to make a statement before such meetings took place and that that could well be done without prejudice to the outcome of the discussions in the all-party Committee on EEC regulations?

I would consider any proposal that would make it clearer to the House what was happening in the Council of Ministers. I think the hon. Member will recognise that this is a continuing process and that some matters are considered by the deputies and do not necessarily reach the permanent representatives, while other matters are considered by the permanent representatives and therefore do not necessarily reach the Council of Ministers. The final form of the agenda is not known until shortly before the Council of Ministers meets. But I will see whether there is any further elucidation that may be given.

This is a matter of great interest to the House. On examination this proposal may prove to be most helpful. But could the Foreign Secretary at least guarantee that after the regular monthly meetings of the Council of Ministers, if those meetings include meetings of Foreign Secretaries, a statement will be made to the House? As he will recall, there was a meeting in January, but no such statement has been made.

There must be a certain amount of flexibility. Certainly we try to meet the wishes of the House and when there are important matters on the agenda, my right hon. Friend or I will certainly make a statement in the House. But we ought not to make it an absolute rule.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to put forward proposals for reform of EEC policies; and if so whether he will list such proposals.

The European Community's programme of action was set out in the communiqué issued after the summit meeting held in October. Her Majesty's Government intend to play a full part in carrying out these and other Community policies and in seeking to influence the pace and direction of the Community's development in the best interests of the Community and of the United Kingdom.

Yes, but as the Government have often told us that one of the purposes of joining this organisation was to effect major reforms there, surely the Government can say what their proposals for those reforms are? Cannot the House of Commons be told?

The Government, of course, had a real opportunity at the summit meeting last October to put forward their views. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did so. It can be assumed that the communiqué issued and made available to the House after the summit meeting embodied very strongly the views of this Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be much more helpful to Britain to take a stronger part in the Community if the Opposition took their part in the European Parliament?

Yes, I think that many others like my hon. Friend regret the absence of Members of the party opposite from the European Assembly.

When these meetings take place will the Minister give the House an assurance that at the time when the present monetary arrangements break down between European countries, as they will do within the course of the next few months, they will not be replaced by something equally as impracticable as the arrangements reached last time? Will he suggest on behalf of the House to the European Ministers that it would be far better to devote themselves to practical measures of co-operation than to indulge in the kind of flights of fancy which led to the present discussions for currency arrangements?

I must say on experience, which is relatively short as yet, that the practical activities of the Community seem very real to me, particularly in the form of these Council meetings.

As nothing was said in the communiqué about the common agricultural policy, is it the view of the Government that nothing is needed by way of reform in that policy now?

It has been the view of successive Governments that in joining the Common Market Britain would take the common agricultural policy as it stood. This, of course, in no way debars the United Kingdom from proposing changes, should those changes seem useful.

Does the Minister accept that there was only very sparse reference in the communiqué to energy policy, and will he try to make available to the House all the documents from the Commission—because they are very hard to obtain—in relation to energy policy emanating from the Commission and its director-general?

The Commission has as yet only just got organised to deal with this problem, bearing in mind that it was completely reconstituted at the beginning of the year. I can assure the hon. Member that issues of energy policy are at the forefront of the Commission's mind and the mind of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his proposals for ensuring that the EEC adopts more outward-looking economic policies towards non-EEC countries.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 26th January to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 849, c. 249.]

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman at least begin by starting to get rid of the common agricultural policy? Is he aware that the agricultural industries of North America are very efficient and have substantial surpluses which, with encouragement, they could send here, thus stabilising the cost of living and preventing the President of the National Farmers' Union from making silly and divisive speeches, threatening my constituents with ever-rising food prices? Might not this lead to some chance of success with the Government's incomes policy?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's feelings on the common agricultural policy. The truth, however, about the North Atlantic production of food is that exports to Europe have greatly increased recently, not diminished. It would not be just to make an argument on the basis that there had been a disbarment of food imports.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that the experience of the European Parliament shows that there are many more outward-looking people there than in this House?

I heartily endorse that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what stage has been reached in the negotiations on the harmonisation of our generalised preference scheme with that of the EEC since this deeply affects many of the non-EEC countries? Is he aware that we shall certainly want a full report on the negotiations at the earliest possible moment?

I realise that the House takes a great interest in this. I take very much to heart that the House will wish to discuss this. It is not until 1974 that there must be harmonisation between British and Community arrangements. This is a matter for urgent discussion now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what will be the number of votes required for decisions of the Council of Ministers by qualified majority; and what will be the number of member countries which will be required to cast their votes in order to make such decisions effective.

Article 14 of the Treaty of Accession, as adjusted in consequence of the Norwegian decision not to ratify the treaty, provides that 41 votes in favour shall be required for the adoption of acts of the Council, in cases where the Council acts by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. In cases where the Council acts otherwise than on a proposal from the Commission the 41 votes must be cast by at least six members.

If my arithmetic is right does that mean that, had Norway been a member of the Community, the new members of the Community would in effect have been able to block any measures which were not to their liking? Is the situation under the new arrangement whereby Norway is not a member that the new members of the Community—ourselves, the Danes and the Irish—will be able to be overriden by the members of the former Six who will have come to many decisions on their own lines before our entry?

On matters which are really the subject of majority voting it is true to say that the position has changed in the way my hon. Friend states. The areas of necessary Community view between new members as against old members are not apparent to me and I do not think that they constitute any considerable element.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will now take steps to provide a suitable relationship between the EEC and member nations of the Commonwealth; and if he will make a statement.

Throughout the process of enlargement of the European Communities the Government have been fully aware of the need to provide the basis for satisfactory relationships between the enlarged Community and the Commonwealth countries. In consultation with the Commonwealth Governments a series of arrangements was agreed in the enlargement negotiations which fully meet their various needs.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Yaoundé and Arusha agreements are unacceptable in West Africa, in those important Commonwealth countries? Does he agree that in view of the conference that is bound to take place when the Foreign Secretary visits Nigeria this matter should be discussed, as a certain amount of confusion and misunderstanding still exists among other countries as to why we joined the Common Market and left them outside?

It was with a view to giving the utmost flexibility to Commonwealth countries, particularly African Commonwealth countries, that the negotiations for accession comprised a series of alternatives. Commonwealth Governments have the full right to make their choice among that wide series of alternatives. It is equally right to say that as yet there has been no African Commonwealth Government, as far as I know, which have declared officially what their attitude is on these alternatives. Therefore the matter remains open.

Are the Government passively accepting a situation in which we have to raise new tariffs against the greater part of the Asian Commonwealth?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there was a clear joint statement of intent by the Community in relation to the independent Asian members of the Commonwealth. This has already borne fruit in the sense that a negotiation mandate has been undertaken by the Community over a negotiation with India for an agreement.

Would it not be of great assistance if the Government and the Common Market supported the American initiative for tariff reductions, particularly if we worked for the substantial lowering of the common external tariff?

All these matters will no doubt come up in due course in the multilateral trade negotiations which are to start later this year. I can assure the House that the Community and the Government have an open and liberal attitude to these negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to discuss within the Council of Ministers joint political initiatives aimed as safeguarding vital European interests.

Yes, Sir. Action will be possible in the Council when the nature of the initiative is such that it comes within the scope of the Community treaties.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider raising as a point of positive Community policy the possibility that in industries such as aerospace, in which Europe has so much at stake, if in future Europe is producing a product and is faced with competition from, say, the United States, rather than considering a tariff it might be possible for Europe to devise a policy whereby a percentage of aircraft or aerospace production which otherwise would be purchased outside the Community would have to be built within the Community?

My hon. Friend has put forward a proposal of which I have had no notice. All I can do is to note the matter he raises and give him a considered reply later.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce or support at the United Nations a policy of intensifying sanctions against Rhodesia, including sanctions against sanction-breaking countries.

We are always prepared to consider on their merits any practical proposals for the more effective enforcement of existing sanctions by the international community. But while there is widespread failure by some countries to enforce these it would be pointless to introduce additional measures.

Will the Minister consider what action he can take to bring about a more satisfactory enforcement of sanctions by this country and others? Does he not agree that these matters must be dealt with one way or another and that if they are not pursued by increasing sanctions, the tendency will be for the right hon. Gentleman to give way to some of his backbenchers who would like him to remove sanctions?

The enforcement of sanctions is a matter for the Sanctions Supervisory Committee of the Security Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that even if the policy of sanctions cannot be escalated, or even at its present level pursued to a successful conclusion, the corollary is not to give in to the Rhodesian régime but that we can and should still in all honour refuse to give our approval to a régime that goes against the principles that we have long cherished?

We have not given our approval to the actions of the Rhodesian régime. We hope that that régime will amend its policies so that ultimately a solution and settlement may be reached.

Mr. Smith is reported as having said yesterday that he was not prepared to enter into fresh negotiations with the United Kingdom but was prepared to settle on the terms previously agreed but rejected by the Rhodesian people themselves. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is in fact the position, that Mr. Smith is not prepared to enter into fresh negotiations? Will he also confirm that the corollary of that is that the Government must set their face firmly against any settlement with Rhodesia on the basis of the agreement that was rejected by the Rhodesian people last year?

I cannot confirm that that is the position of Mr. Smith, but, as I have said before, the course of action which seems to be the most constructive and most likely to result in a fruitful settlement is discussions within Rhodesia itself between the Rhodesian régime and the political parties existing in Rhodesia.

Will my noble Friend give some encouragement at least by saying that if the Government are proposing to take some initiative against Rhodesia in the form of sanctions this will be combined with an initiative at the United Nations for sanctions against Uganda?

We are not proposing any immediate initiative because, as I have said in answer to a previous supplementary question, we believe that the initiative must result from discussions within Rhodesia herself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the closure by the Rhodesian régime of the border with Zambia.

This is a most regrettable development. I believe it can only make more difficult the search for an acceptable settlement of the Rhodesian problem and increase the level of tension in the whole area. Our interest is to see a rapid return to normal. I am in contact with the Zambian Government and with Mr. Smith.

While I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, inasmuch as it shows that he is in contact with both sides, may I ask him to acknowledge that the Zambian Government are a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations and that the Rhodesian Government are an illegal bastard régime? Should he not make a statement saying that the British Government, on behalf of our people, stand by the people of Zambia and will give all possible aid? I know he would not wish to have any direction over the BBC, but when the BBC invites Mr. Ian Smith to make a statement on television would he not agree that he should ask the BBC to invite also a spokesman from the Zambian Government to make a statement?

It is not for me to say what the BBC should or should not do. I think that is better left to the BBC. The Zambian Government are a member of the Commonwealth, and we are in touch with Zambia as a member of the Commonwealth, and I hope that our procedures in relation to her are not only correct but friendly. If we can help, we have told the Zambian Government that we will do so. When a Government pursuing racialist policies inside a country find freedom fighters coming from outside, I am afraid that that is a situation which I have warned time and again would be bound to lead to conflict, and my fear all along, through all these years and from long ago, has been that eventually there would be a front on the Zambesi between the southern half of Africa and the north. That is something we must all try to avoid.

Since my right hon. Friend has expressed disapproval of terrorism elsewhere, will he express his regrets to the Zambian Government at the presence of terrorist gangs in Zambia, consisting of Chinese and Russian trained guerrillas? Is it not a fact that there are 30,000 Chinese at present in Zambia and Tanzania working allegedly on the Tanzanian Railway, and that they are an ever-ready threat to Rhodesia?

There is no doubt that there are terrorist gangs which can be represented as a threat to Rhodesia. I do not on the facts feel myself justified in making representations to the Zambian Government.

In contradistinction to the Fascist balderdash we have just listened to from the benches opposite, may I say how glad we all are, in all parts of the House, to hear the tones of the Foreign Secretary in saying that it is the hostility by Mr. Smith which has led to the hardening of attitudes and to the confrontation of black and white which we all fear and detest as the right hon. Gentleman does? May I ask him to answer one question on the Kariba Dam? Does he feel, as some of us do, that Mr. Smith may take action later in cutting off supplies from Zambia or does he think that that is impossible in view of the way we have laid down that the dam should work?

Mr. Smith has declared that he has no intention of doing any such thing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official representations he has now made concerning the forthcoming French nuclear tests in the Pacific.

We have no authoritative confirmation that a French test series will take place in the Pacific in 1973. The French Government are of course aware of our concern in the event of any resumption of tests in view of our responsibilities in the Pacific. I am confident that if they decide to resume tests they will, as on previous occasions, give us adequate warning so that we can make appropriate arrangements for radiological health surveys.

As the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear that they believe that the European Community has a role in world affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Government apparently have taken no action at all to put their dislike of these tests to the French Government? Would he please do so? In the event of the tests taking place, can he categorically state that no observers will be present on behalf of the British Government?

The French Government know perfectly well that we hope that in due course they will adhere to the partial test ban treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] This is a matter for the French Government, and we have made our position in the matter perfectly clear.

On Question No. 5 the Under-Secretary asked us to await this Question to hear what the Pitcairn Islanders said to the Government on this matter.

There have been regular visits, by the Commissioner responsible, to the Pitcairn Islands. There is no evidence of any health hazard to the Pitcairn Islanders.

What have they said? The right hon. Gentleman does not know.

There is no evidence of any health hazard and no representations have been made to us.

What consultations and co-operation have there been between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Australia and New Zealand about this? Can the right hon. Gentleman say what has been done or what is proposed to be done? Is he aware that the people and the Governments of these two countries look to us for help in a matter which particularly affects them and certainly affects the rest of us in the sense of an overall anti-nuclear policy?

I understand that the Australian and New Zealand Governments are working on the formulation of a policy which they will adopt towards this. They have not yet reached any definite conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that we voted for the resolution sponsored by them at the United Nations last year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week an allegation was made that following some of the nuclear weapon tests in the Pacific there had been a deleterious affect on the fruit of the Pitcairn Islands—perhaps the most beautiful fruit in the world? Can he say whether there is any truth in this?

I have absolutely no information which would confirm that allegation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is deep resentment throughout Australia and New Zealand at the gutless attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Can we at least as a last nostalgic gesture towards our fast-departing Commonwealth do the decent thing and stand up and be counted on this moral and political issue?

As I have said, we supported the resolution sponsored by Australia and New Zealand at the United Nations last year.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests Her Majesty's Government have received from the Zambian Government for military and economic aid.

We have received no recent requests from the Zambian Government for military aid. We have periodic consultation with the Zambian Government about the level and contents of our civil aid programme to Zambia and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development is in Zambia now.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have noted with approval his use of the term "freedom fighters" in answer to an earlier question this afternoon? Bearing that in mind and the fact that Southern Rhodesia is a British colony for which the right hon. Gentleman has also said Britain has full responsibility, may I ask him to give us an assurance that Britain will discharge her full responsibilities to Zambia in view of the present situation which arises directly out of the failure of the Government to deal with the rebellion in Southern Rhodesia?

Zambia is indeed a Commonwealth country and if she wants any military assistance no doubt she will ask us whether we can help her. We are training members of the Zambian armed forces now in Britain. In the last few years various items of military help have been given to Zambia. I see no issue of principle here. It is a matter of knowing Zambia's needs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what help the Government have offered the Government of Nepal in alleviating famine conditions in some areas.

The Nepalese Government have asked Her Majesty's Government for assistance in the preparation of a feasibility study for an airlift, to deliver food-grains to certain hill areas of Nepal where the food shortage is expected to be most acute. The Nepalese Government have also asked Her Majesty's Government for assistance in the operation of the airlift. A feasibility study has now been completed and we are considering urgently in what way we can help with the airlift. I hope to be in a position to give hon. Members further information in the near future.

I welcome my hon. Friend's statement. Does he agree that the British people have the warmest respect and regard for the Nepalese and that should the Nepalese Government call for assistance in the remote areas the Government should react as soon as possible and supply whatever food is required by whatever means they can? In so doing, will they seek assistance from the Indian Government and ensure that there is no delay in that quarter?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. The matter was raised with me when I visited Nepal in November. We understand that if an airlift is feasible it will entail a lift of about 1,850 tons, using four Hercules aircraft and one Puma helicopter.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said, but is it not true that this is the most grave famine which Nepal has suffered for some time? Is it not the case that not only food but technical, agricultural and medical assistance and people are required? What plans has my hon. Friend in mind towards that end?

The main need is for food-grains. I understand that the total shortfall for the whole country will be about 85,000 metric tonnes. On the question of agricultural and technical help, the Government are already giving aid for agricultural research activities and we are also providing a massive aid programme in the construction of part of the east-west highway in Nepal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government about constituents of the hon. Member for Nuneaton held in Spanish goals.

Three of the hon. Member's constituents were arrested in Benidorm on 14th July 1972 and remanded in custody pending their trial on drugs charges. They returned to Britain in January after being granted provisional liberty on bail.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the assistance which his Department's staff in Alicante rendered to my constituents, but can he be satisfied with a situation in which British citizens in Spanish goals must buy their own food? Is he satisfied with the system of Spanish justice as it affects British citizens who, having been detained for a long time and awaiting further trial, are suddenly released on payment of a heavy fine?

I understand that it is the custom to enable people in Spanish prisons to supplement the diet by buying food, otherwise the diet is not very palatable to British people. As to the release of these people, they were charged with very serious crimes about which the British Embassy in Madrid gives constant warnings to young people. I think that they were fairly lucky to get out when they did.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Czechoslovakia about their refusal to allow Mrs. Hathaway to visit her husband, the Rev. David Hathaway, a British Pentecostal minister imprisoned in Czechoslovakia for bringing a consignment of Bibles into that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many letters he has received asking him to make representations about the imprisonment by the Czech authorities of the Rev. David Hathaway.

I have received 61 letters about Mr. Hathaway. Mrs. Hathaway visited her husband in October at the time of his trial and I understand will visit him later. Mr. Hathaway was sentenced for importing pamphlets, not Bibles.

Is the Minister aware that at the beginning of this month Mrs. Hathaway applied to the Czechoslovakian Government for a visa to visit her husband, that the visa was refused and that she has not been able to see her husband since the hearing of his appeal and his sentence to two years' imprisonment? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the pamphlet was contained in a consignment of scriptures and was simply a pamphlet stating that these were copies of the word of God? Is it not a fact that Mr. Hathaway is unable to see his wife and that the only crime which he committed was to be in possession of these scriptures and pamphlets which were to be distributed, not in Czechoslovakia but elsewhere on the Continent of Europe? What representations will the Minister make to the Czechoslovakian authorities to ensure that Mr. Hathaway's wife has the opportunity of visiting him?

I have no information to the effect that a visa has been refused, but if my hon. Friend will let me know about the matter I will look into it. I understand that Mr. Hathaway is applying for one now. As to the pamphlets, I think that the best thing I can do is to put a copy of them, in the Czech original and in the translation, in the Library of the House so that hon. Members can judge for themselves whether the pamphlet has, for Czechoslovaks living in Czechoslovakia today, political overtones. I think that hon. Members may conclude that it has. The crime was a matter for the Czechoslovakian courts. It would not be a crime in our courts, and I can understand my hon. Friend's distaste for the matter.

While we must wait to see whether a visa has been refused or whether an application is now being made, will the Minister note that I believe that, whatever may be the political content of the tracts, there is a strong desire on both sides of the House that, if Mrs. Hathaway abstains from political controversy, she should be allowed to visit her husband in goal?

I have no doubt that that is the sentiment of the House, but I have no reason to suppose that a visa will be refused. Hon. Members should know that a petition for Mr. Hathaway's expulsion from Czechoslovakia was presented by his lawyer on 17th January and we must hope that it gets a favourable response.

Is it not a fact that this man was convicted of an offence unknown to English law? Will my hon. Friend recognise that many of us in the House are gravely concerned that a man should be convicted, not only of an offence unknown to English law but of conduct which no civilised country would consider to be against the law or antisocial? Will my hon. Friend think about this matter again and consider making the strongest representations to the Czechoslovakian Government?

I do not think my hon. and learned Friend is correct in saying that the offence is unknown to English law. He was convicted of sedition. The evidence which was brought certainly would not have given rise to a conviction in this country, but the crime is not unknown. The maximum penalty for it is five years. He was given two years and no sentence was passed about the Bibles.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to offer the Government of North Vietnam aid for rehabilitation and reconstruction in the event of a peace settlement.

As I told the House on 24th January, I am considering the question of British aid for post-war reconstruction both in North and South Vietnam and in Indo-China as a whole, in the context of the expected international effort. I am therefore in touch with a number of other Governments on the best way of proceeding. I am also in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that with some fighting still continuing it may be difficult for the United Nations to organise anything effective, certainly in the short term, and that perhaps the best hope would be to meet the most urgent needs on both sides on a government-to-government basis? Will he bear this very much in mind, in addition to what he has already said about medical supplies?

I will bear this in mind. The hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that we arranged this urgent supply on a government-to-government basis and we have, therefore, been able to meet the need for vaccines for which there was a particular request. I think that we shall deal with this on a government-to-government basis for the time being. Nevertheless I am certain that the United Nations will have to be brought into this matter to ensure that it is properly organised.

Will my right hon. Friend see whether it is possible to involve the United Nations disaster relief organisation, whose establishment hon. Members on both sides of the House have been urging for many years?

Yes. My hon. Friend will remember that I took initiative in this respect with the Secretary-General. There is now such an organisation in existence—at least the nucleus of one—and I should like to see it develop.