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

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

My right hon. Friend has at present no such plan; but if we can get negotiations going again, he would certainly be ready to take part in them.

If the Belgian authorities can reach agreement with Iceland and the German Chancellor can take a special initiative to try to reach agreement, is it not time that we did the same? Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate the strategic significance of Iceland, or does he not care if we blow a damned great hole in the defences of NATO?

My hon. Friend will realise that negotiations in Reykjavik between the Germans and Icelanders have made good progress, but they have not yet by any means come to a conclusion. The German Chancellor will be stopping in Reykjavik on his way to Greenland, where he is going fishing, but entirely within territorial waters. It is important to realise that we are not comparing like with like. The German fishing fleet fishes for ocean perch, red fish, or coal fish, whereas we are concerned with cod. The Germans fish at a distance from the Iceland coast different from that at which our fishing fleet operates. One cannot exactly compare the two sets of negotiations, but we hope that any progress the Germans make with Iceland will lead to similar progress in our case.

Is it not tiresome, now, in 1973, to be told in this Chamber that we must do what the Germans are doing, when for 12 months or more Government Ministers and some of us from our constituencies have gone to Iceland and attempted to obtain a settlement, and, indeed, have had five separate sets of talks on this matter? Nobody can chide us about not attempting to get a settlement.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) for what he has done on this subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what he said in answer to the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Laurance Reed) does not rule out the possibility of the Foreign Secretary's visiting Reykjavik for direct talks if he thinks that such talks would be helpful to a solution?

I am glad to reaffirm that if we can get negotiations going again my right hon. Friend is perfectly ready to take part.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects are on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

The estimate of subject headings likely to come up for discussion in the Council this month was lodged in the Vote Office on 28th June.

Did the Government agree. in the Council of Ministers, to a document which sought to lay down conditions for the GATT talks this autumn, and which stated that the principles and mechanisms of the common agricultural policy should not be called ino question and were therefore in no way matters for negotiation? Is this not a complete breach of all the pledges we have been given about a thorough review of the CAP?

No, Sir, indeed not. The principles of the CAP have always been stated by us clearly to be matters that we would not seek to vary. The mechanisms are, in themselves, the methods by which the principles are applied. If the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will look a little further at the document he will see that it is provided that should there be arrangements covering commodity arrangements, or something in the nature of good conduct arrangements, there would be an adaptation of the mechanisms concerned. I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to that chapter in the document.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister promised the House yesterday that the whole common agricultural policy would be under review and that he also said that, if necessary, the Council of Ministers would discuss this complete review in the autumn? Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is not only necessary but essential for the Council of Ministers to discuss this matter, because it is within their power to bring to an end these import levies on food, which, in the case of food that is not scarce in the world—and many foodstuffs are in that category—is artificially putting up the price of food in this country? Should not the British people have their point of view expressed to the Council of Ministers on this vital issue?

My hon. Friend is creating a certain amount of confusion between the document that is there to set the scene for multilateral negotiations and what may transpire in the Council of Ministers on its own initiative. They are different things. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was right in saying that the whole matter of the CAP is being and will be reviewed, and nothing prevents the Council from doing what it wishes in that respect, provided that there is agreement in the Council so to do. But that is different from setting the scene for multilateral negotiations, where the Community is seeking at the outset to set out the basis upon which it believes the negotiations should take place. The Community has not been unforthcoming in this matter. It has clearly postulated its desire to meet precisely the point made by my hon. Friend with regard to certain commodity agreements on an international scale, good conduct arrangements, and so on. My hon. Friend has perhaps not read the document through to its end.

While acknowledging the importance of the CAP, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give the House an indication of the Government's view on a common energy policy? We have the Commission's views, and what we lack are the Government's views on such a policy.

The Government consider that there would be great value in a concerted view being developed within the Community to face the problem of the supply of energy in the coming years. The Government have taken that view in their discussions within the Council. The matter is still under discussion—it has not by any means come to an end—and we are waiting for the Commission to put forward further proposals, which we hope it will shortly do, to carry the matter further in the Council.

Is it the hope and expectation of my right hon. Friend that the GATT negotiations will result in a liberalisation of the CAP?

I think it would be the Government's wish that multilateral negotiations should result in a broad liberalisation of trading movement world wide in every field, and I do not exclude agriculture from that.

May we take it that when the Prime Minister said yesterday that the whole matter would be subject to review he meant that the Government's position is that they do not accept in perpetuity either the principles upon which the CAP is based or the machinery which the Commission has so far devised for the purpose of implementing the CAP? As one who is and always has been a pro-Marketeer, perhaps I may tell the right hon. Gentleman that being in favour of entry into the Common Market does not necessarily mean that one endorses every scrap of the CAP.

I believe that the work now being undertaken by the Commission in reviewing the CAP does not exclude anything. Principles, mechanisms and systems can be reviewed. I underline the fact that changes in those are not a matter of a desire of one country. They are clearly matters for discussion between all partners.

In view of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the answer to my Question, I beg to give notice that I shall arise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek an early meeting with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan.

President Bhutto, who is of course his own Foreign Minister, would always be welcome in this country, but there are as vet no firm arrangements for a visit. My right hon. Friend had a useful meeting with Mr. Aziz Ahmed, the Pakistan Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Defence, during the CENTO meeting in Teheran last month.

When. the Foreign Secretary meets President Bhutto will lie make representations to him about the number of Bengalis in preventive detention in Pakistan, several of whom have British wives who are living in this country with their families?

The Indo-Bangladesh joint declaration of 17th April proposed, among other things, that those Bengalis in Pakistan who wished to return to Bangladesh should be allowed to do so. Although the Pakistan Government have expressed some reservations about the proposals in the joint declaration, exchanges of messages are taking place between the Indian and Pakistan Governments.

May I remind my right hon Friend that the communiqué issued at the conclusion of the Teheran Conference reaffirmed support for Resolution No. 307, passed by the Security Council on 21st December 1971, which, inter alia. called for the return of Pakistani prisoners-of-war as part of an overall settlement in the sub-continent?

My hon. Friend will know that all the leaders in the sub-continent have made it plain that they do not want outside mediation and intend to settle their differences between themselves. I am sure that that is right, but we are ready to help if it appears that we can usefully do so at the wish of the parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who will represent the Government at the conference to be held as part of the World Population Year 1974.

A decision on the composition of the United Kingdom delegation will be made in due course.

I wish the delegation well, but when it is appointed at this important conference will it not be placed in an embarrassing position, because the Government are refusing to adopt a population policy for this country, even when one is so necessary? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will be offering greater assistance for the solution of the world's population programme than the present totally inadequate amount that they give? If not, in what way do the Government hope to make an impact at the conference?

My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said—on, I think, 21st May—that the Government considered that time should be allowed for public opinion to crystallise before announcing their conclusions on the recommendations of the Population Panel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States and French Governments on matters of mutual concern following Mr. Brezhnev's recent visits to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with President Nixon and President Pompidou about matters of mutual concern following the recent visits of Mr. Brezhnev to Washington and Paris.

We are in close touch with the United States and French Governments at all times and both Governments have kept us informed of their talks with Mr. Brezhnev.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that he is satisfied that no arrangements were made between President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev that will be prejudicial to the security of Europe? With regard to the French visit, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mr. Brezhnev has had an invitation to visit London, or is it the policy of his Department that President Pompidou should be the spokesman for Europe?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that to the best of my knowledge that is the case. Mr. Brezhnev would always be welcome in this country. Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Kirillin have been here. Diplomatically, the ball is in the Soviet court, but we do not attach undue importance to protocol in these matters. The way is open for reciprocal visits by one side or the other at any time that the Soviet Union is willing to make one.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that these visits increase the need for the closest co-ordination of Western tactics in dealing with the Soviet Union at the CESC talks at Helsinki? Does he not also agree that one of the best results to come out of Helsinki has been the unity of attitude between the Nine and NATO?

I am glad to say that there has been close co-ordination, both in NATO—which includes the United States—and the EEC, with the other eight European countries about the attitude that we should adopt at Helsinki, and I have every reason to believe that that co-operation will continue.

That was a remarkably evasive reply by the right hon. Gentleman.

Order. Is the hon. Member asking a question?

Was not that a remarkably evasive reply by the Minister? Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not expect Mr. Brezhnev or anybody else to come here without an invitation. Why is it that America, France and Germany can do it, and we cannot?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not feel jealous about this. There are good reasons why the two super Powers should talk among themselves. We very much welcomed the visit of reconciliation marked by Mr. Brezhnev's visiting Bonn, and the relationship between France and Russia goes back to well before the First World War. I was merely saying that in ordinary diplomatic terms it is their turn to ask us. We have had two of their senior Ministers in this country, but we should not stand on protocol in these matters. There is close contact between the two Governments in both London and Moscow. At the appropriate moment I am sure that a visit could be arranged. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a very positive intervention about the matter during a recent speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what authority his Department instigated the relaxation of security measures at Heathrow Airport in the case of Sheikh Omar Saqqaf, Minister of State at the Saudi Arabian Foreign Office.

No action was taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in this case. Sheikh Omar Saqqaf spoke by telephone to a senior official of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who explained the purpose of the security precautions and apologised for any inconvenience which they might have occasioned. Sheikh Omar Saqqaf did not ask that any official approach should be made to the authorities at Heathrow.

I accept that aircraft security arrangements can be waived reciprocally for diplomats by prior arrangement, but is it not a fact that in this case the waiving of these security arrangements took place as a capitulation to the most disgraceful threats of this petulant princeling, including the threat to have this aircraft detained at Jedda airport unless the airport authorities did as he demanded? Remembering that the Khartoum massacre took place with arms smuggled into the Saudi Arabian Embassy, ought not these security restrictions to be most stringently maintained?

In general, the Government believe that it is unavoidable and right to ask even the most distinguished passengers in commercial aircraft—both in their own interests and in the interests of all passengers in the aircraft—to submit themselves to security checks. British Ministers are doing so when they travel. But the implementation, and the judgment as to how the security checks should be implemented, is a matter for the decision of the individual airlines.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that while no one should be above any rules, regulations or laws, there is a case for tact and discretion being used by the authorities at the airport, whether in relation to a person who happens to be a sheikh of an oil kingdom or, on the other hand, a woman who, perhaps, is pregnant?

Yes. I feel that tact and discretion should be exercised, and my impression is that, generally, this is the practice of individual airlines. But I hold to the view that Ministers and other dignitaries should be aware of the grave dangers that now exist on the airlines and should be prepared wherever possible to submit themselves to this kind of search.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take a new initiative towards settling the dispute with Rhodesia.

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

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend told the House on 27th June.

As the chances of an agreed settlement with Rhodesia now appear to be less bright that at any time since 1965, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that the Government do not have a closed mind about the indefinite continuation of sanctions?

My hon. Friend takes a very pessimistic view about the situation—and, indeed, the prospects are not all that good. But as my right hon. Friend told the House very recently, there are some signs that the two sides are increasingly aware of the desirability of reaching a settlement. We should like to consider the position further in relation to the point made by my hon. Friend. We may be making a statement before the Summer Recess.

As this matter was discussed by the Prime Minister and General Gowon, does the right hon. Gentleman see the opportunity of an initiative being taken by his Government and, perhaps, by other Governments at the Heads of Governments Conference in Ottawa, with a view to its being a Commonwealth matter?

This matter must now be settled by the peoples within Rhodesia. No other agreement would be stable in the long term. We look to the people of Rhodesia themselves to reach agreement.

Is it not a fact that the present demands by Bishop Muzorewa's ANC for parity now and majority rule in the very near future are well outside the settlement terms negotiated and will, therefore, make a settlement more difficult and increase the drift towards South Africa?

The longer the delay that occurs before reaching agreement and a settlement, the greater are the dangers that face all peoples in Rhodesia.

What was the purpose of the recent secret visit by top Foreign Office diplomats, which had suddenly to be made public? Was the visit really necessary? Did it serve any purpose? In view of Mr. Smith's subsequent remarks, is it not about time that we did everything we could further to strengthen the sanctions that we are imposing against Rhodesia?

I do not accept the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question is based. The purpose of the visit was to maintain contact with all sections of Rhodesian opinion, in accordance with our policy since the Pearce Report, which has general support. The visit was designed to obtain an up-to-date assessment of the situation there, and so that Sir Dennis Greenhill could explain to Mr. Smith and Bishop Muzorewa the views of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Dennis was not recalled prematurely, and there was no subterfuge about the visit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has had from non-governmental bodies in Rhodesia regarding a return to legal government.

During his recent visit to Rhodesia, Sir Denis Greenhill and the two officials accompanying him saw a number of prominent Europeans and Africans, including members of non-government bodies, and heard their views. Many people of both races were concerned to see a return to legality through discussions between the two sides.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are now people of all races, black and white, who urgently want Smith off their backs? As the regime is illegal and there are people of all races who wish to return to legality, should not the Government now declare that they support those people and promise that they will give them all the aid that they are required to give to see that Rhodesia returns to the status it held before the illegal thieving by Smith and his associates'?

If I understand the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question aright, I can certainly assure him that we want to see a return to legality.

In spite of the excessive drama of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), is it not now clear beyond all doubt that Mr. Smith is leading Rhodesia to a disastrous situation? Is it not long overdue that the British Government made that clear beyond all doubt to Mr. Smith and his colleagues?

I noticed with satisfaction one aspect of Mr. Smith's speech recently, namely, that Rhodesians must get together to find a solution to their own problems. That is what we have been urging for a very long time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will submit to the United Nations Economic and Social Council a programme for a decade of action against religious persecution.

Her Majesty's Government have no plans to submit such a programme to the Economic and Social Council.

Is it not the case that in, perhaps, half the world Christianity, Jewry and Islam are persecuted by Powers that lead the movement in the United Nations and elsewhere against apartheid and, indeed, against the non-racial policy of Portugal? Should not our attention and the attention of the United Nations to human rights be free from these double standards'?

I am glad to say that the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations has produced a draft declaration and a draft convention on religious intolerance, and both items are included in the provisional agenda for the next session of the General Assembly. We shall then give our support, wherever possible, to those drafts.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us would like to see some hon. Members on the Government side refrain from double standards? Hon. Members of the Opposition have opposed Russian policy in Czechoslovakia and, equally, American policy in Vietnam, and that should be supported on both sides of the House and not by the sort of question that is an indication of the double standards of some hon. Members.

I hope that nothing that the hon. Gentleman said implied that he was supporting Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia.

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I was not. That is a typical example of double standards.

May I ask my right hon. Friend why it was not possible for him to answer my hon. Friend who posed the Question with the words "Yes, Sir"?

For the simple reason that we think that a declaration passed by the United Nations and a convention would come better, before calling for a "decade". We are not very sure that these decades—

Ten years.

—are all that useful. We should like to see the passing of a draft declaration and draft convention on religious intolerance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he anticipates making public the proposals of Her Majesty's Government for the Law of the Sea Conference of 1974.

As I explained to the House last Thursday, Her Majesty's Government have already expressed views on the major topics with which the conference will be dealing. These are contained in statements made by the British delegation to the United Nations Sea Bed Committee, which is preparing for the conference.

As the United Nations has already recognised that the wealth of the seas is the common heritage of mankind, will it not be a tragedy if the great bulk of that wealth is now appropriated by the most powerful, the best situated and technologically the most advanced countries? Will the Government at least say that an enclosure movement is not a method of enforcing law and order but its negation?

A comprehensive solution can emerge only through negotiation at the conference itself. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be the first to agree that it would be unwise to reveal all our hand before the negotiations have begun, when other countries have not done so.

What machinery is available within my right hon. Friend's office to receive representations on this subject? Will he assure us that any representations made to the office will be carefully borne in mind, from whatever source they come? I have in mind, of course, the fishing industry.

There is no problem about making representations to the Government. They can be made to the Foreign Office, or, where fishing interests are concerned, to the Ministry of Agriculture, or, where industrial underwater economic interests are concerned, to the DTI.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the two British Government representatives on Pitcairn Island about the monitoring of French nuclear tests; and if he will make a statement.

Two RAF technicians were landed on Pitcairn Island in the middle of May. They are now carrying out routine background radiological observations. They will thus be in a position to detect any local effects of nuclear explosions which may reach Pitcairn.

In particular, what facilities are available to these two RAF technicians for monitoring the short-lived iodine 131?

I should want notice of the detailed point, but I understand—

It is not a detailed point.

I understand that they are very well equipped to monitor all the likely radioactive consequences.

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "well equipped"?

Adequately equipped, well equipped. We have been doing this for a number of years. The hon. Member took me to task the other day as a Leonardo da Vinci, but he seems a one-man laboratory in these matters. I ask him to believe that we take these matters seriously. I would only add that I was glad to see that, in spite of the Chinese tests, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) attended the Chinese acrobatics last night and that environmental considerations did not interfere with their study of the acrobatic art of which they stand in great need.

Returning to Pitcairn Island, is my right hon. Friend aware that in answer to my questions the Prime Minister has persisted indignantly in saying that the allegations about radioactive material leading to the reduction of flora and fauna to negligible proportions on the island were not true, that no radioactive presence had been found on the island, and that it was not until last May, as a result of the persistence of my questions, that he put these two observers on Pitcairn Island? Will my right hon. Friend make quite sure that this time evidence is placed in the Library as to the true position about radioactive fallout as a result of the French explosions?

The latest information available to me confirms what the Prime Minister said. It appears that the verdure on Pitcairn Island is lusher than usual this year. It is not our practice to produce day-to-day running commentaries on what the technicians on Pitcairn report, but, as on previous occasions, I shall ensure that, if he wishes, my hon.

May I put to the right hon. Gentleman a point that he may wish to answer later? How relevant and how available is the evidence and knowledge gained by the Indian monitoring system for our own purposes of deciding how serious or how innocuous these tests will prove to be?

I should want notice of that question. I shall certainly write to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement on the future of St. Helena.

The St. Helena development adviser hopes to return to London on 1st August with his proposals. They will be studied urgently and I shall inform the hon. Gentleman of the outcome.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, will he take note of the fact that a large percentage of the families on this island live on less than £3 a week for the whole family? In view of the fact that these are all British citizens, will he take immediate steps, before the report is published, to relieve the poverty and appalling conditions in which these people live?

This is a very important matter and the development adviser is giving priority to investigating this aspect of life in St. Helena. I have asked the Governor to consult the development adviser as to the possibility of producing an interim report on the desirability of such measures affecting the poorest section of the community there.

If there is such an interim report, will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that it contains urgent consideration of the need for some sort of airstrip or airport? This, above all else, is what the island needs if it is to survive.

The report will of course be studied urgently. Two members of the Civil Aviation Authority are advising on the feasibility of an airfield, but there are as yet no firm proposals to build an airfield.

Will my right hon. Friend consider putting some pressure on the Overseas Development Administration to see whether some funds can be found urgently to help the people of St. Helena? I fully endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) about the present standard of living there. Will my right hon. Friend give this urgent consideration in advance of any report by the development adviser?

I think that the step that I have taken, of asking for an interim report, is the correct one in the circumstances. But the question of the level of aid to St. Helena must await the publication of that report. Before then, it would be wrong to act.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why his Department advised the amendment of a speech which the Duke of Edinburgh intended to make during his recent visit to Portugal.

No problems arose in connection with the drafting of this speech that needed reference to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Will the Minister answer the Question? Did the British Embassy withdraw the advance text of a speech that the Duke of Edinburgh was going to make, and, if so, why?

I do not think that the hon. Member quite understands what happened. It is quite normal. I do not know whether it happens to him, but it often happens to me. [Laughter.] Any speech goes through several drafts, and in the course of preparation of the speech, the draft alters. This is all that happened. Quite normally, in the course of preparing his speech, the Duke of Edinburgh consulted the ambassador about it and made certain changes.

Why?

Can my right lion. Friend answer this question? Why should British Members of Parliament be so eager to make trouble for an alliance vital to the security of the West in this historic anniversary year?

I join my hon. Friend in wondering why. It seems to me very strange.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the gravest charge against the Foreign Office is that it put the Duke of Edinburgh in the humiliating position of having, by implication, to condone Portugal's cruelly repressive policy in Africa?

Any changes that were made were made by the Duke of Edinburgh himself. They were not made at the request of the Portuguese.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to hold official talks with the United States of America Secretary of State.

My right hon. Friend will be seeing the United States Secretary of State at the first stage of the Helsinki meeting this week.

As the Helsinki conference is witnessing a new mood of relations between the European countries, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it might be appropriate, on this American Independence Day, to seek to redefine our relations with the United States, particularly in matters of trade agreements, while, of course, ensuring that those relations remain close and cordial?

Relations between this country and the European Community and the United States are very close and very good in trade, monetary and defence matters. We want to consider very carefully before we redefine our relations, but we fully accept the proposition put forward by Dr. Kissinger that we must see whether there is any cause to redefine them.

In view of the great United States interest in the matter, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary meets the American Secretary of State will he seek to erect safeguards against the disruption of United States commodity markets occasioned by the trading policies of the EEC? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that that is important, in view of the implications of the disruption of those markets on prices prevailing in Britain?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to commodity markets in terms of agricultural produce, which I understand him to be, perhaps he will recall that the President has restricted the export of agricultural produce from the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will reconsider the criteria of recognition by Her Majesty's Government to be applied in the case of foreign countries changing their forms of government.

No, Sir.

As, in a moment of unaccustomed clarity, the Greek regime was described as illegal by the Minister's right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and in view of today's news of further arrests in Athens, including the arrest of the former Foreign Minister, Mr. Averoff, will the right hon. Gentleman now describe the regime as what it is, a guttersnipe crew of smalltime fascists whom we should not be recognising? Should not we reconsider the recognition that we so hastily gave after the illegal deposition of King Constantine?

The present Government, like the previous Government, have based their criteria for recognition—

It does not enjoy support.

on whether a Government can be held to enjoy, with a reasonable prospect of permanency, the obedience of the mass of the population and the effective control of much the greater part of the territory. Those have been the criteria applied by the Attlee Government and every other Government since the war. I think that they apply to the present Government in Athens, whatever view the hon. Gentleman wants to take.

When my right hon. Friend referred to his criteria I thought I heard a murmur from the Opposition benches of "It does not enjoy majority support". Was the hon. Gentleman who said that talking about Czechoslovakia or Greece?

Both.

I am advised—I was not in the Chamber at the time—that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) suggested in an intervention last week that commanding support should be a criterion, but if that were the case there would be precious few Governments that we should be able to recognise.

Can the Minister, who is obviously very well informed, tell us what Governments now in existence the present Government have not recognised?

As the right hon. Gentleman may know—though he may not have been in the House when we discussed the matter on Thursday—we have not yet recognised the North Vietnamese Government, because it has been an established policy not to recognise Governments in divided countries, but we are moving towards it and as soon as certain criteria have been met I dare say we shall be able to consummate it.

Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that, whatever may be the intention of Her Majesty's Government, the premature recognition of the Greek Republic will be universally recognised as a stamp of approval, and that that impression will be ruthlessly exploited during the campaign leading up to the plebiscite later this month? Would not it have been better and fairer at least to wait until the plebiscite was over? What will be the Government's position if. as we all hope—including, no doubt, Her Majesty's Government—the plebiscite registers a negative vote?

I do not think that our recognition was premature, in accordance with the criteria, which I have explained. As my hon. Friend knows very well, the Greeks are a very sophisticated people They have a long experience of relations with us, and they will know exactly the grounds on which we have decided to recognise the Government there. The second part of my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to convene an international passport conference with a view to abolishing family passports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to initiate the convening of an international conference on the question of family passports and their validity.

In view of the fact that a large number of married couples are glad to take advantage of this facility, which enables them to travel together without the expense of obtaining separate passports, we could not justify initiating international action to abolish the family passport.

Will my right lion. Friend explain in simple English how he reconciles the fact that a wife may not travel alone on the passport with the Government's pledge that they will shortly introduce anti-discrimination legislation of their own?

There is a misconception about the matter. The family passport is an additional service over and above the individual right to own a passport. It works very well, and its removal would hurt families financially. The passports are extremely popular. If there had to be two separate passports there would be an additional cost of £5 to each family that at present goes on holiday on the family passport.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that does not necessarily follow? Does he not realise that the proposition that the head of the family alone should be able to use the passport himself, or, in the case of a widow, herself, was a German proposal made 47 years ago, and that social attitudes have changed since then? Why are the Government so reluctant to try to convene another conference on the matter to remedy this gross injustice, which is indefensible in present circumstances?

The hon. Gentleman's language exaggerates the situation. The passport is a free service, which is extremely popular with families, as it reduces the cost of family holidays. There is no need to call an international conference to abolish it. We could abolish it unilaterally without a conference.

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend is addressing his mind to the point that is being raised. There is a widespread feeling in this country and most other countries that the present position is an out-dated anomaly, and that passports should be issued equally to a woman or to a man. The fact that they are issued only to the male head of the family causes disquiet.

I appreciate that, but the family passport is something we grant over and above the usual passport facilities, and there is no obligation on any man or woman to take it. I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but if his suggestion were adopted it is possible that the passport would not be acceptable to other countries, and the family passport, as such, would have to be withdrawn.

The right hon. Gentleman and the Government have gone round in a circle. When the matter was first raised by the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Miss Fookes), the original point she made was: "Why should not a wife be entitled to use a family passport in exactly the same way as a husband?" The right hon. Gentleman will remember the answer that was then given, namely, that other countries might not accept it. The hon. Lady then said, "What have we to do to make other countries accept it?". She was then told—the right hon. Gentleman will remember this—that an international conference would have to be convened to persuade other countries of a wife's right to use a family passport. She is now asking for such a conference to be held and the Government are now saying, "No". Are not the Government getting themselves into a ludicrous position?

We do not know whether we shall get agreement. That is one aspect.

My right hon. Friend seems to be a bit muddled. Would not it be a good idea if the Government asked the Women's Commission to examine the matter? The commission is composed of all parties and all sorts of women. Let us see what we can do after we have received the commission's advice. The present situation described by my right hon. Friend seems unduly muddled. Does he agree that we should take proper action and really get to grips with the matter? Perhaps the Government will then be able to act properly.

I am prepared to take the advice of my hon. Friend, the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). I am prepared to listen to the opinions of various organisations. However, the House must take account of the fact that it is the wish of many families that these passports should be issued. I shall willingly consider the point that has been put forward by my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman try to understand that the argument is not that the family passport is unpopular? The argument is that it should be possible for a wife to use a family passport. Is it absolutely necessary to have a convention simply to get agreement with other countries to accept that a woman can travel on a family passport without her husband? Would it not be possible to get in touch with other Governments and to determine whether they will accept that position?

We are making inquiries with other Governments about this matter.

In view of the utter confusion of Ministers of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office throughout this Question Time I shall seek to raise several subjects on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his consultations with Commonwealth countries since 1st January 1973 concern- ing the implications for them of British entry to the EEC.

While it is, of course, for the Commonwealth countries concerned to decide what sort of relations they wish to pursue with the European Communities, these matters are the subject of regular consultation between those countries and ourselves.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that at the time of British entry to the EEC on 1st January there was a large range of unresolved problems concerning our obligations to Commonwealth countries? Further, does he agree that those countries were advised that if they would bear with us after entry we would pursue their interests with all the vigour at our disposal? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there are grave misgivings within the Commonwealth about the degree of vigour with which those interests have been pursued? Would it not be helpful, in view of all the critical negotiations concerning Yaounde and other matters coming up this summer, to issue a White Paper detailing precisely how the Government have been pursuing Commonwealth interests within the context of the EEC?

I must emphasise that in the case of all the relationships to which the hon. Gentleman refers there is a need for the countries concerned to pursue their interests as they see them themselves. It is for Her Majesty's Government to consult with them, and where possible, to give them every support in their interests. That is what we have done. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, for instance, has made a veritable pilgrimage around the Commonwealth countries in Africa seeking and finding out their interests, deciding how best their interests can be catered for, and seeking to do so. The results to date are by no means unsatisfactory.

Order. I must admit to an error. I should not have called the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). Questions relating to overseas aid should begin not later than 3.20 p.m. I was carried away by the excitement of Questions Nos. 16 and 17. Mr. Roderick.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for giving special help to the drought stricken areas south of the Sahara.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in bringing relief to the drought stricken areas of the Sahara.

I refer hon. Members to the replies I gave to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on 13th June and to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 20th June. A Royal Air Force reconnaissance team is in West Africa looking into the need for more aircraft to move food. This morning I had a report from the team leader in Dakar which shows that, with one exception, enough aircraft are already available; but there is a need to move food from Dakar to Bamako, in Mali. We intend to meet this need, provided the Government of Senegal agree. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has confirmed that RAF Hercules aircraft are available for this task.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. It has been felt for some time that we have not been acting as urgently as we might in dealing with this problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many aircraft we have available for use, how many we are likely to put at the disposal of the authorities, and when we shall put them at their disposal?

If the necessary formalities can be completed, I hope that the aircraft will be in the area before this weekend. There are three Hercules aircraft standing by at quite short notice and they will go to the area concerned. I think that they will be sufficient to carry out the task that has been identified for them. If they are not sufficient, my right hon. Friend has promised to consider the needs in the light of what we find after the aircraft begin their operations.

I appreciate the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given. However, why is it that whereas Belgium has had three Hercules aircraft out there for a month and America has had four aircraft, we have not yet sent one? As the reconnaissance team went nearly a fortnight ago, what has held up, and what is holding up, the use of aircraft, particularly when the rains have begun to make the roads impassable and have put 2 million people in extreme danger?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is making difficulties that do not exist. I told him a few days ago that a team was going out. The team reported only this morning that there is this need. I have decided that the need should be met, and the aircraft will be there within two or three days.

In this instance has the special machinery of the United Nations 24-hour relief and stockpiling, which was agreed two years ago, been in use? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries about that?

The problem is largely one of moving food from certain points to other points in the area. That is a need which the team went out to identify. It found that there is the need that I mentioned in my answer, and that need will be met.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will increase the amount of aid granted to South American countries.

I am at present providing for steadily increasing sums, both for capital aid loans and for technical assistance.

Although some of these countries are now developing an industrial base, is it not the case that parts of the continent still have some of the worst illiteracy and some of the lowest per capita incomes in the world, and that in the past they have received a disproportionately small part of British aid? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that in future such countries, as well as those countries traditionally associated with Great Britain, receive a growing part of the British aid programme?

It is because of the recognition of the great needs in South America, and the opportunities for export which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently pointed out, that I have given my hon. Friend that answer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us roughly how the new aid provision to Latin America is being distributed? I understand that some is likely to go to Brazil, but is any likely to go to Chile, where enormous steps are being taken to benefit the mass of the people? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us something about the tremendous debt problems, and the efforts to help that the British Government are likely to make?

We have programmes in many countries in Latin America some, naturally, larger than others. I shall have to ask the right hon. Lady to put down a detailed question, because I should hate to give her the wrong information, as I may do if I try to answer her without notice.