asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the subject of EEC political union is to be discussed at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

No, Sir. I am not aware of any proposal that this subject should be discussed at the next meeting of the Council.

When the Secretary of State has this subject on the agenda will he make it clear to the Council of Ministers that his commitment binds only the Conservative Government? Will he remind the Council of Ministers that Parliament has not been consulted on this matter? Furthermore, will he emphasise to the appropriate meeting of the Council of Ministers that the British people have not been consulted, and are most unlikely to agree?

No, Sir, I should not go so far as that. No Government can bind their successors. That is quite clear. There is no particular pattern for political union at this moment. It cannot be seen in advance. There has to be an evolutionary process.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the closer the political consultations and action of the nine countries of the Community the better, not only for Western Europe but for the western world, in all the most important international matters of today?

Yes, I think that consultation is very important. My experience of the meetings so far is that the Foreign Ministers try to reach the maximum consensus on any particular matter of policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the debate on the Common Market a Foreign Office Minister said that it is not the aim of the Government to work towards federalism? Will he assure the House that that view remains, and that we are still opposed to federalism?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is referring to me. I believe, and have always said, that it is useless to attach labels like "federalism", "federal" or "confederal". Europe will have its own pattern, which it will work out for itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what celebrations and exchange visits are planned for the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance; and who will be the British guests of the Government on these occasions.

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

There are two official visits planned to mark the 600th anniversary of the Anglo-Portuguese alliance The Duke of Edinburgh will visit Portugal from 5th to 8th June 1973 and the President of the Council of Ministers of Portugal, Professor Caetano, will visit Great Britain from 16th to 19th July. Other events planned include a good will visit to Lisbon by ships of the Royal Navy, and cultural events in London and in Lisbon.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that going ahead with these celebrations is a calculated insult to those people who are still fighting for basic human rights in those areas which are still under Portuguese influence—rights are happily taken for granted in this country? Will he reconsider the whole question?

Portugal's internal policies are not a matter on which it would be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government or myself to comment, nor one over which Her Majesty's Government have any control. Portugal is our ally in NATO and it is our policy in that context to develop businesslike and friendly relations with the Portuguese Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we were to follow the logic of the hon. Lady's suggestion we would break off diplomatic relations with every country in Africa?

There is a good deal of truth in what my hon. Friend has said.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Members in this House and people in the country regard Portugal's war of colonial aggression in Africa as obnoxious, and see the 600 years' celebration as an occasion for lament rather than rejoicing? If an official visit has to be paid to Portugal, will the hon. Gentleman go himself rather than get the Duke of Edinburgh to do his dirty work for him?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Certainly, if I were invited to go to Portugal I should be happy to do so. In fact, the Duke of Edinburgh wishes to go, and he has the full support of Her Majesty's Government for his visit to that country.

Does my hon. Friend accept that sensible people will be glad at both the content of his reply and the reasons which he has adduced in support thereof? Does he further agree that if we were to follow the precepts of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) we would be left with very few friends in the world, except perhaps those whose friendship we might be better without?

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his remarks. I think the House accepts that for some time African matters have been a source of open and acknowledged disagreement between Britain and Portugal, but that does not prevent us from wishing to maintain friendly relations with Portugal.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Opposition Members will greet with some relief the phrase that he has just used, namely, that British and Portuguese views on what policies should be pursued in colonial Africa are at variance? Will the hon. Gentleman at least give an undertaking that any official visit which is paid on this occasion will not be regarded as a condonation of Portuguese policy in Africa?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, but I think he is aware that Her Majesty's Government endorse the principle of self-determination by all colonial peoples. We believe that its implementation, including timing and method, is a matter for the administering Power.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to make an official visit to Chile.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to do so.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Chile, just having gone through an election, is in urgent need of a period of stability in the course of which the democratic process can thrive still further in that still democratic country of Latin America? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that the British Government will offer substantial, increased aid to Chile in order to assist her during this precarious period and to offset the sustained political and economic blackmail by the United States Government, as evidenced at the recent inquiry in that country?

We are in close touch with the Chilean Government, both politically and commercially. As the hon. Gentleman said, we share with her a long democratic tradition, and we look forward to a visit soon by Chilean parliamentarians. Our contacts over commercial indebtedness are close and will continue.

Should a Foreign Office Minister find himself reciprocating the visit of the Chilean parliamentarians, will he be certain to take a delegation comprising right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite so that they may witness at first hand some of the more devastating consequences of the application of the extreme measures of Socialism which have taken place in that country?

The autumn session of the IPU will take place at Santiago in Chile, and perhaps hon. Members will be able to see for themselves.

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

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

My right hon. Friend paid an official visit to Bangladesh in June last year. There are at present no further plans to visit the sub-continent.

I accept that, but does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most urgent questions that must be tackled in Bangladesh is that of the Biharis, thousands of whom are living in appalling conditions in what amount to refugee camps? Does not he agree that this is another question upon which Pakistan and Bangladesh should meet if a solution is to be found, and should not British policy be aimed towards that end?

The condition of the Biharis is a matter of great importance, and I can inform the House that the most recent report that we have received from the High Commissioner in Dacca, prepared after consultation with International Red Cross officials, indicates that the Bangladesh Red Cross is continuing the relief operations conscientiously and that the security and living conditions of the Biharis, although poor, can be said to be on a par with those of the Bangalees.

Will the right hon. Gentleman seek to make clear to the Bangladesh authorities and to the Indian Government that the friends, in this country, of their countries are seriously concerned not only about relieving the conditions of the Biharis but also about the continued retention of more than 90,000 prisoners-of-war 15–16 months after the ceasefire? Will the right hon. Gentleman make every effort to get these prisoners-of-war returned to Pakistan, where they wish to go and should be allowed to go immediately?

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important matter. The important thing is to achieve the return of the prisoners-of-war. At Simla, India and Pakistan agreed to discuss further the question of the repatriation of prisoners-of-war and also of civilian internees. We welcome that decision, and steps have been taken to implement the Simla agreement. We believe that the best hope for success lies in negotiations between the countries immediately concerned.

As, in terms of multinational aid to Bangladesh, Britain's contribution was second only to that of the United Nations Agencies, and bearing in mind that the recent harvest has been the lowest for more than a decade and therefore that Bangladesh will require further aid from foreign countries and from this country, will my right hon. Friend try to convince Sheikh Mujib that talks between Bangladesh and Pakistan should go ahead, so that they can endeavour to settle their outstanding views, without the question of recognition, if need be?

It is true that the Government have contributed substantially to aid relief. We made a £12 million grant towards aid in Bangladesh and we shall be sending a delegation to the forthcoming meeting of donor countries which is to be held in Dacca in a week or a fortnight's time. The position is that President Bhutto and Mrs. Gandhi have made it plain that they do not want out- side mediation and intend to settle their differences between themselves. I am sure that that is right although Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that should they be able to assist in any way they would be willing to do so.

Do the Government feel that they are able to make representations to Bangladesh about the predicament of the collaborators who are still being tried in that country? Do the Government accept the desirability of bringing to an end the continuing aftermath of the war in an effort to stabilise the situation? This would make a healthy contribution to the future of the sub-continent.

I can only reiterate that we believe that the best way of reaching a solution to this very serious and intractable problem is that the three countries concerned, which have expressed the wish that there should not be outside mediation, should be allowed to proceed in their own way towards settling their differences. I am sure that, for the moment, this is the best road towards progress.

I welcome what the Minister has said, which I am sure is the most sensible approach. However, in offering our good offices to the three countries in the Asian sub-continent will he ensure that in any advice or assistance which we offer them in an effort to solve these very difficult matters we bring together all the problems affecting people who are greatly at risk as a result of the recent war there? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman confine his attention not merely to the matter of prisoners of war, which is very urgent, but also to the question of the Bihari minority, including those Biharis who wish to return and have been asked to return to Pakistan, as well as the enormous Bengali community in Pakistan, which is being kept there mostly against its will?

Yes, Sir. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are in consultation with the leaders of the Governments concerned, and that these are matters which we discuss with them. But, of course, our consultations with them are confidential.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of India and Pakistan.

Her Majesty's Government are in frequent and regular contact with the Governments of both India and Pakistan on matters of mutual interest and we have, through our representatives in Delhi and Islamabad, been in touch recently with senior members of both Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the detention of the prisoners-of-war for 16 months could, if it continues for much longer, poison relations between these two friendly countries for generations to come? Since 16 months have elapsed with no apparent move, will he at least take a public initiative, along with other great nations, to try to bring these two countries together?

I can only repeat what I have said before, that we regard as one of the most important features of a settlement the return of the prisoners-of-war to their countries of origin. In so far as we can assist in this and in other matters relating to a settlement, we are very willing to do so, if asked by the countries concerned.

Is the Minister aware that this problem is causing a great deal of worry and heart-searching to communities within this country? Hon. Members receive representations to this effect from time to time. Is it not a fact that this issue of prisoners-of-war depends to a large degree on the recognition by Pakistan of Bangladesh? Will he use his best endeavours to get talks going along these lines?

The concern is felt not only in this country but throughout the world. The hon. Member and the House will know that Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has just visited India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. He has informed us that he had useful talks in all three capitals and was impressed by the serious intent of all the parties to reach a settlement, although he was well aware that this could not be achieved overnight. We are in close touch with Dr. Waldheim and we are ready to help him and the countries concerned if it is felt that we have a useful rôle to play.

May I remind my hon. Friend that when he speaks of the "countries of origin", he is being incorrect, as the only prisoners-of-war remaining incarcerated are the Pakistanis captured on the eastern front, who capitulated on 16th December 1971 to Lt-General Jangjit Singh Aurora, and that since the instrument of surrender contains no Bangladesh signatures this must indicate that Mr. Hornsby is right to say in The Times today that the joint command is a fiction and that the pre-consent of Bangladesh should not be called for before repatriation of the prisoners-of-war?

I do not think that I am incorrect. Many factors are involved in this dispute, not just the prisoners-of-war. There are the civilians in two of the countries concerned, whose problems we must bear in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now seek to arrange an official meeting with the French Foreign Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with the French Foreign Minister on political co-operation in Western European countries.

The Foreign Minister of France is always welcome here, but we have no firm plans at present for a meeting.

But is it good enough for the Government merely to say, as they do, that the French are well aware of our opposition to their nuclear test explosions in the Pacific? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not put his beliefs into practice by making official representations to the French, as other Governments have done?

Because, time and again, I have made it clear to the French Government what our view is. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] Our view is that the test ban treaty should be adhered to. It is quite a simple view, which I have made clear to the French.

Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the French, and publicly, that we are not in favour of any joint Franco-British nuclear force and would remain loyal to our NATO allies?

We will certainly remain loyal to our NATO allies. Any other question about a Franco-British nuclear force is a matter for the future, if at all.

At the recent WEU meeting, I asked M. Debré, the French Minister of Defence, whether he would have further consultations with the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand, and he definitely turned me down. Can my right hon. Friend reopen those negotiations?

We are in touch with the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand, but I do not think that this affects our attitude to the question that I was asked, which was whether we could make plain our view on the nuclear testing. My answer is that we have done so many times.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the key to this matter is that France should have facilities for underground nuclear testing? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the French have access at least to the technology? Then they would be able to sign the partial test ban treaty and cease this atmospheric pollution.

If the French were to make any approaches to us, we would give consideration to this matter, or any other. They have not done so so far.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will put forward proposals designed to strengthen Great Britain's links with other Commonwealth countries.

The existing machinery for Commonwealth cooperation is very adequate for the purpose and we play our full part in it. Britain's bilateral links with individual Commonwealth countries are of course close.

That was a complacent and generalised reply, which is typical of everything that the Government say about the Commonwealth. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who believe that the Commonwealth could have a vital rôle to play in the world's future think that it is on its last legs? Is he further aware that the present position has been brought about largely, although not entirely, by this Government's obsession with entry to the EEC and also because of their serious neglect of the Commonwealth since they came to office? Will he take every possible step—political, economic, educational—to try to restore the bonds which existed only a few years ago before it is too late?

Certainly we will take any steps. I hoped that I was going to hear from the hon. Gentleman some positive proposals for strengthening Britain's communications with other Commonwealth countries. He will recall that we have the Commonwealth Secretariat, and we have our bilateral talks, which work very well. The machinery is there. Whether we can make more of the machinery is a matter of opinion. I am always ready to take advice on that.

To put this matter in proportion, are there not many Commonwealth countries of which we are extremely proud? Are there not others—legalised rape in Zanzibar, which forms part of Tanzania, and the activities of President Amin are much in the news—of which, to make no bones about it, we have reason to be ashamed? Is not our right course to be sensibly discriminating?

This question was essentially about contacts with, and machinery for contacts with, the Commonwealth. They may be able to be improved, but I think that if they are properly used they are adequate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has made any arrangement for further meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister over the future of Gibraltar.

The Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Lopez Bravo, will visit London in early May. During his visit he and I will cover a broad range of matters of mutual concern and continue our discussions on the subject of Gibraltar, about which we have agreed to work together.

Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that we welcome the new aid agreement signed with Gibraltar on 6th March but hope that alongside it will go a new resolve to ensure that the people of Gibraltar are allowed to decide their destiny and will not be pressurised to join the Fascist régime in Spain.

Yes. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear on that point, nor need anyone in the House. Written into the preamble of our Act of Parliament is the fact that the people of Gibraltar shall decide their own future..

Without endorsing the loose use of the word "Fascist" by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes), may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is not the case that Spain wishes to take her place with us in a United Europe? Is it not, therefore, quite inappropriate that Spain should have adopted a hostile attitude towards some of our fellow subjects in Gibraltar?

Yes. I deplore the fact that Spain's attitude towards Gibraltar is hostile. In the Spaniards' own interests they would make much more progress if they wooed the Gibraltarians.

In view of some of the other recent somersaults in Government policy, do not the people of Gibraltar need some reassurance from time to time? What plans has the Foreign Secretary for visits by himself or other Ministers to Gibraltar to reassure the people there?

I have recently seen the Chief Minister of Gibraltar and other Ministers. I have been in Gibraltar quite recently. I see no need for reassurance whatever. They are quite content with the statement in the Act of Parliament that they should decide their future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Sudan Government regarding the valuation of the assets of British companies nationalised in 1970.

Negotiations have been taking place between the companies and the Sudan Government. Her Majesty's Government are not directly involved but we have consistently made it clear to the Sudan Government that we attach great importance to a settlement. I myself raised this during my recent visit to the Sudan. Talks held recently have resulted in a substantial measure of agreement on the valuation of assets. We expect further negotiations to be held shortly on the means of paying compensation.

I am glad to hear of this progress. I warmly welcome the visit of President Nimeri, but will my hon. Friend impress upon him the need for firm agreement not only on the valuation of these assets but also on the need for prompt payment of compensation? Does my hon. Friend agree that the sooner this agreement is reached the sooner can British industry be encouraged to respond to the need for and potential of renewed private investment in the Sudan?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, we very much welcome the visit which President Nimeri is about to pay. We recognise that the Sudan Government are genuinely anxious to resolve this problem in a way which is satisfactory to all parties. Their difficulty is a shortage of foreign exchange.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange for individual passports within a family to be issued collectively at the cost of a joint passport.

No, Sir. The family passport as at present issued is a facility which is well used and appreciated. To do what my hon. Friend suggests would be tantamount to granting a passport free to all married women and every child under 16.

I appreciate that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that this suggestion would effectively remove discrimination against a wife or a widow not being able to use a joint passport unilaterally—an iniquity perpetrated by international convention? Secondly, would not it help to minimise the illegal immigration of alleged wives and children into this country with a British male passport-holder returning to the United Kingdom on a joint passport?

On the first point, I find a little difficulty in agreeing with my hon. Friend that it is discrimination that married women should not have what is something extra, which no other person in this country has. It is clear that it would be irresponsible of the Government to act unilaterally in this matter. We have made inquiries and have been assured by several countries that they will not accept a passport which is not in the name of the holder. Whether an international conference is possible in the future is a matter that I am willing to discuss but we shall have to see.

When this question was last raised the Minister who replied was rather flippant in his answer. Will the Under-Secretary undertake to exercise some initiative on behalf of the Government to call a new international conference to discuss this matter, because there is a feeling among women particularly that there is discrimination against them in this respect?

I am aware of the feelings which have obviously set off the Questions which have been raised in the House. As for an international conference, I am willing to investigate that matter. I cannot be very optimistic because very few countries are concerned with this matter as they do not issue family passports; so it is difficult to get them to come along. But we shall have a go.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the countries at present resisting the change which we should like to make are not confronted with the same problems as those with which we are, particularly in respect of the second part of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman)?

I appreciate what my right hon. Friend says in regard to immigration control. This is an important matter, which we are looking into.

Would it not be sensible to abolish the joint family passport altogether and reduce the cost of the individual passport to something much more reasonable than the present charge? How much profit does the Foreign Office make out of issuing passports at present?

There is something in what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his supplementary question. But my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have a comment about the second part. Our total receipts from the issue of passports are about £8 million. That must go in with all the consular expenses we have, and in view of that we are justified. The House agreed a short time ago to raise the charge to £5.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about the present dispute with Iceland over the fishing limits.

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Reykjavik, accompanied by two senior officials from Whitehall, will be having discussions with the Icelandic Government in Reykjavik tomorrow. These will not be negotiations but are designed to pave the way for ministerial talks, which I hope will be renewed very soon. I would also hope and expect that there will be no further Icelandic harassment of our trawlers while these talks go on.

We are very pleased to hear the news that preparations for talks about talks are taking place. But is it not of the utmost importance that the negotiations at ministerial level start as soon as possible and that they should not be conducted under the threat of harassment of our fishing fleet by the Icelandic Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the rôle played by the EEC in this matter in refusing, as I understand it, to ratify the free trade treaty with Iceland until next July, until the situation of Iceland and Britain on fishing limits has been reviewed?

Yes, Sir. This action has been taken by the European Community, so everything is suspended until it is seen how these talks go—until next year. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the talks will not take too long and that the negotiations can be quickly transferred to a ministerial level.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this is the best news that the fishing ports have had since 1st September 1972? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that our ambassador in Reykjavik has met the Icelandic Foreign Minister, Mr. Agustsson, and that it is more than likely that we shall have the beginnings of an interim agreement which will carry us on, perhaps, into the Santiago talks on the much wider questions of the law of the sea, the sea bed and the whole range of items to be discussed there? Is this not so, and is it not a much better climate altogether?

I hope so. If one may use an appropriate simile, I never like counting my fish until they are on the bank. We have not got this one landed yet, but things look a little better for the time being.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that both sides of the House will be very glad that negotiations are to be resumed, and echo what he has said about the general hope that they should not proceed in an atmosphere of anything like harassment or retaliation on either side?

I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the consideration by the Council of Ministers of the EEC of the Arab-Israel conflict in the Middle East.

At the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Nine in Brussels on 16th March my colleagues and I exchanged views on the situation in the Middle East.

Now that the Common Market, as the saying goes, can speak with one voice in foreign affairs, what is that one voice about the Middle East? If the voices are not all the same, what are the differences?

Everyone is anxious to find a solution for the Middle East. If Europe has a contribution to make—I say "if", because this is not certain—we should concentrate on trying to be helpful. Therefore, we discussed the Middle East with the desire to be helpful if, on some future occasion, our intervention was requested.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people would prefer the Council of Ministers and the EEC not to involve themselves in this matter at all? However, while this is, on the one hand, a matter for the parties directly involved and, on the other, a matter for the United Nations, it is not a matter for the small, irrelevant group dominated by the spiteful and nasty French Government.

I can easily recognise one person who thinks that we in the Community should not try to be helpful. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's attitude. I should have thought that anyone who had the interests of the Middle East at heart would wish to be helpful, and it is possible that the European Economic Community can be so.

When does the EEC intend to set up a Foreign Affairs secretariat?

That has not yet been brought up again.

Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it would be really helpful if the countries in the EEC agreed to supply arms to neither side? The most specific influence other countries can have on the Middle East is for them to call a boycott of arms to either side, and the EEC might well provide a start in this direction.

I think that restraint is exercised by most European countries in relation to arms sales to the Middle East. It is certainly exercised by Britain. Various suggestions have been made—for example, that European countries might guarantee any settlement that is made. We in the Community should give serious consideration to that. It cannot do any harm. It may do some good.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the discussions which have taken place with Commonwealth sugar-producing countries in regard to development aid following the termination of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974.

In view of the undertakings on sugar incorporated in the Treaty of Accession, the termination of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement does not itself create a need for discussions on development aid.

Is the Chancellor of the Duchy aware that it is precisely because of these negotiations that discussions on development aid need to take place; because, as some of us stated at the time, the Commonwealth countries, particularly the sugar-producing areas, were sold down the river by the agreement that was then concluded? A further examination of the needs of those countries following the completion of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in 1974 is urgently required.

I do not share the apprehensions to which the hon. Gentleman gives voice. The provisions made under Protocol 22 of the Treaty of Accession were exceedingly explicit, and I think that the discussions which took place at Lancaster House and which gave rise to the assurances which were given to the sugar-producing Commonwealth countries were widely accepted as being very relevant to their future situation.

Is my right hon. Friend taking steps to translate the bankable assurances which were given at the time of the negotiations into explicit undertakings by the beet sugar growers of Europe that they will not take over the main sugar market of the developing countries?

As I am sure my right hon. Friend knows, the intention is that these matters should be the subject of negotiations starting this year, and those negotiations will take place in the context of the very firm assurances which have been given both here and by the Community. I have little fear that those negotiations will give rise to an unsatisfactory outcome. However, they will take place as scheduled.

Though the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement talks are to take place next year, for the renewal beyond 1974, surely the Chancellor of the Duchy will agree that the most relevant and immediate decision is within the Community, on the size of the beet sugar acreage for which support prices will be given in the coming year. The House and all sugar-growing countries would like to know that the British Government and the Council of Ministers will ensure that there is no increase, and if possible a decrease if the examinations of the supply position justify it, in beet sugar acreage in Europe.

I believe that the critical question is that there should be a clear understanding, both in the Community and here, that it is the full intention to honour the undertakings given at the Lancaster House discussions. That is the full understanding both here and in the Community

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the RAF airdrop of food supplies in Nepal.

The Royal Air Force airdrop of foodgrains in Nepal began on 3rd March, and by 20th March 1,000 metric tons had been dropped. We are hoping to complete the total airlift of 1,850 tons by the first week of April.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part he has played in bringing about this airlift. I also congratulate the personnel involved. Is not this a great assurance to our friends all over the world that where necessary, in a humanitarian cause, we not only can take the initiative but have the means of engaging in such a difficult and hazardous operation? Does not this further demonstrate the need for a high level of intelligent defence expenditure?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is indeed a very satisfactory outcome. We have been able to do this in other parts of the world. Only recently we conducted a similar operation in the Sudan.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his representatives in South Africa have yet completed their survey of how British-owned firms are participating in apartheid practices; and whether he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Ambassador and his staff in South Africa are not carrying out any survey of the kind mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. But they naturally keep themselves as closely informed as possible on this subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that most of the British firms which have been expressing surprise and ignorance about the behaviour of their subsidiaries in South Africa have known all along what was going on in terms of wages? That includes Jim Slater, to whom I wrote as long ago as last September.

I cannot comment on the specific charge the hon. Gentleman makes. I most certainly welcome the reaction of British firms which have announced their intention of looking into the practices and enterprises in South Africa for which they have responsibility.

Although South Africa, very regrettably, has only herself to blame for the long-standing and often hysterical preoccupation of the Left over conditions in that country, will Her Majesty's Government resist most strenuously the temptation to assume some sort of broad moral responsibility for economic and social conditions in a part of the world for which we ceased to have responsibility 63 years ago?

Investment by British countries in South Africa is most important in bringing employment to non-white employees in South Africa. The whole House will agree that this is very important. I do not believe that a policy of boycott or ostracism towards South Africa would be of any help to the non-white population.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to repudiate the squalid remarks made by his hon. Friend? If he does not, is it not time that he realised that a large part of this country, not necessarily confined to one particular view or one political party, was profoundly shocked at the recent disclosures of what British firms have been doing to their employees in Southern Africa? What have the right hon. Gentleman and the Foreign Office done to establish the facts? Have they, for example, asked the firms concerned to account directly to them for the allegations which have been made? Have they had in representatives of the firms to discover exactly what the position is?

Maybe that is so, but it does not alter the facts. I am astonished by the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks. What is notable is that the Labour Government did nothing whatsoever when they were in office, whereas in August last year we issued advice in a pamphlet through the Department of Trade and Industry which emphasised the importance of improving pay and conditions of service.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the duty of persons corporate or individual in South Africa is to obey the law of that country? Will the Government seek to avoid giving the impression of interfering in any way in the internal affairs of South Africa or setting up standards of conduct for a country 6,000 miles away of which, on the whole, we know very little.

It is not the law.

We are not responsible for the law in South Africa, and in that sense I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Equally, however, there is scope for improving pay and conditions of non-white employees with British companies, and I hope those companies will look very carefully at the possibilities of doing so.

The right hon. Gentleman is evading my point. Specific allega- tions have been made publicly and these allegations should be investigated publicly. It should be done, if possible, by an inquiry through the machinery of this House. Why on earth do the Government not accept that position?

Because I have already explained that a mass of information has been made available. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will take the opportunity of studying it he will be able to inform himself on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will deduct from aid funds for Zambia and Tanzania amounts sufficient to compensate victims in Rhodesia of terrorist operations mounted or sustained from those countries.

No, Sir.

Have not Rhodesians, black and white, who are in our law British subjects been murdered by terrorists trained in Tanzania and staged through Zambia? What must be the feeling of the bereaved when these two countries are offered unqualified aid by the United Kingdom?

The victims and their relations will understand that the United Kingdom aid programme to any country is geared to the development of that country and is designed to increase stability. Therefore, this issue must be separate from any question of compensation to victims of terrorism.

Is not the truth that this current phase in Rhodesian development and its effect on neighbouring countries arises because of the activities of a number of treacherous and disloyal people? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the question from the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is almost equivalent to seeking reparation for former Fascist countries because of the activities of British forces in the last war?

That point is pretty far-fetched. However, I am quite clear in my mind that we must not mix up development aid with compensation for victims of terrorism.

Will the Foreign Secretary be in a position fairly soon to tell us what extra aid is proposed by the British Government for Zambia as a direct result of the effects of the conflict with Rhodesia, particularly as the Canadian Government have just announced £3 million of aid to help specifically for this reason in the light of the United Nations recommendation?

The Canadian Government have announced an extra £3 million aid, but their existing aid programme is small. My noble Friend in another place has announced an extra £1 million interest-free loan for Zambia for road transport equipment and this is in addition to the aid programme now running at £7 million a year, the bulk of it on technical assistance. We are also helping with financial arrangements for the Kariba North power station, in the form of £14,650,000 over 18 years, and we are paying pensions for British overseas civil servants for which the Zambian Government were previously responsible. The whole thing adds up to a very large aid programme.

Is it not a matter of history that terrorist operations against Rhodesia from north of the Zambesi began before UDI?

There always has been a certain amount of terrorism on that frontier, but lately it has been stepped up.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Smith régime in Rhodesia concerning the further harassment and arrests of members of the African National Council who have opposed the collection of signatures for a document purporting to convey African reappraisal of the Pearce proposals.

The Rhodesians have indicated that the detentions of African National Council leaders were made for security reasons and that the cases will be considered by the Judicial Review Tribunal. As I indicated to the House on 28th February, I have taken the matter up with the Rhodesian authorities and have urged that they should be brought to trial if there is evidence against them.

Although the equally deplorable trial of Mr. Niesewand has attracted more publicity, the arrest of Mr. Chadzingwa and Mr. Ngcebetsha was equally deplorable and was, I believe, because they had been advising Africans not to sign the bogus document that is being circulated as a counter-balance to the Pearce Report by the Rhodesian Government. If that document ever comes to London will the Foreign Secretary undertake to treat it with the contempt it deserves, and will he make further strong protests to the Rhodesian Government about the detention of these two men in particular, because they are in very poor health?

I have made representations about the two mn. I do not know how to treat a document which I have not seen until I see it.

Should it not be made clear to Mr. Smith that for this House to be satisfied that the test of acceptability has been fulfilled he will have to do rather more than collect signatures; that he must show that there is some accord between his Government and the political organs of African opinion?

It had been our hope that Mr. Smith would get in touch with and talk with the various representatives of African opinion in Rhodesia, and also that the process would move the other way and that Bishop Muzorewa and his supporters would get in touch with Mr. Smith so that consultations could take place.

Will the Foreign Secretary re-emphasise that the test of acceptability is for this House. It is for us and not Mr. Smith to be satisfied that the proposals are acceptable to the Rhodesians as a whole.

It is certainly not for Mr. Smith to be satisfied; it is for the British Government, because it is we who have to bring proposals to this House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about developments in Rhodesia.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there have been any further contacts between Her Majesty's Government and the Smith régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave hon. Members on 28th February.— [Vol. 851, c. 1482–3.]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the pressure which is being exercised within Rhodesia on the African National Congress makes it more difficult to judge the attitude of that organisation to any possible proposals for settlement and to determine whether it is a free attitude? Does he further agree that there is a serious risk that if the ANC is subjected to these pressures it will cease to operate in a free atmosphere and will cease to command the respect of the outside world as the voice of the Rhodesian people? Will he therefore make representations to the Smith régime to the effect that it should take its hands off the ANC?

I have said that I have made representations on behalf of the members of the ANC. I have asked Mr. Smith, if there is evidence against them, to bring them to trial. In general I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that the European citizens of Rhodesia fully appreciate what this House will require before a settlement can take place? Is not one of the greatest obstacles to a settlement the present leader of the régime in Salisbury?

Mr. Smith does lead the régime and exercise the authority. Any settlement that is made has to be made with Mr. Smith, among others. I must emphasise that the important thing now is that the initiative should come from Rhodesia, and all parties in Rhodesia.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that sanction- breaking, the use of the British flag by some ships engaged in sanction-breaking, the case of Mr. Peter Niesewand and the situation with Zambia call for serious examination? Does he not agree that the Government must keep an extraordinarily close eye on all these things and take whatever action is necessary, in whatever appropriate institution?

Yes. I noticed, looking at the figures on sanctions, that last year Rhodesia exported 240 million dollars' worth of goods to countries other than South Africa and imported 210 million dollars' worth of goods from countries other than South Africa. We have made 18 prosecutions, while practically no other country has prosecuted. Our sanctions story is at least good. This is what is happening.

Will my right hon. Friend continue patiently trying to explain to hon. Members on both sides of the House that Africa is not Hampstead?

I think that hon. Members have taken the point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the talks relating to constitutional changes for the Bahamas; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend and I told the House on 21st December and 29th January.—[Vol. 848, c. 468–70; Vol. 849, c. 280.]

What representations has the Minister had from the people living on the island of Abaco, and what reply has he sent?

I received representations from certain people from the island of Abaco before the independence conference. I was not able to accede to them. Abaco is an island in the Bahamas with a population of 6,000 out of a total population of 170,000, and it has been administered for the last 200 years as an integral part of the Bahamas. There was a general election which demonstrated a substantial majority in favour of independence and the independence conference was successfully concluded on that basis.