asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the Foreign Minister of India.

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

Is the Minister of State aware that recent events in India have given cause for great concern to the friends of India in all parts of the House? We look to the Government to make clear to the Indian Government, and those responsible, that what happens in India—without our in any way attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of another country—is of great interest to many countries in addition to the Soviet Union.

It is true that anything that happens in India is followed with great interest in this country. We are naturally concerned about the present emergency in a fellow member of the Commonwealth and the measures that have been taken under it, but it is, of course, an internal affair. I have noted that Mrs. Gandhi has said that the Indian Government hope to end the emergency as soon as possible. I hope that this will soon be possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the future of the Chogyal of Sikkim and of that State is of concern to his friends in this country and to those who love his particular part of India.

That is also an internal affair. I do not want to make any comment to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's future policy towards the Government of Uganda.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to terminate British diplomatic representation in Uganda.

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

Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend's handling of the delicate diplomatic manoeuvre which led to the release of Mr. Hills will be warmly approved by hon. Members on both sides of the House? In all the circumstances, would it be appropriate, perhaps, for the Foreign Secretary to be promoted to the rank of field marshal? However, on a serious note will the Minister say something more about the nature of the assurances which were received from the Government of Uganda? Were they specific? Were they in writing? Will they guarantee that no more British subjects will ever again be placed in jeopardy from inhumane and arbitrary treatment?

I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and all my other right hon. and hon. Friends will appreciate the comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) about the way in which my right hon. Friend handled a very difficult and delicate situation. I think that there was a general feeling of respect in the country for the way in which my right hon. Friend tackled the matter.

There are two particular aspects to the questions asked by the hon. Gentleman. The most important aspect concerns the British community in Uganda. My right hon. Friend received assurances from President Amin that Britons were welcome to live and to work in Uganda. The President undertook that if any problems arose over individuals in the future he would discuss these privately with our acting high commissioner. He also gave assurances concerning compensation, and these are being followed up at official level. Naturally it is our hope, and I am sure it is the hope of the House, that the assurances that have been given will be fully respected.

I should like to add my congratulations to the Foreign Secretary for his masterly handling of the situation, which was unstable not only in its political ingredients but in some of the dramatis personae involved.

Regarding compensation, many hon. Members now have constituents who are refugees from Uganda. The Ugandan Asian community in this country will want to know what the Foreign Secretary was able to secure by way of compensation agreements with General Amin.

As my hon. Friend has referred to thanks and tributes, I should like, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to express his gratitude to President Mobutu and to his State Commissioner for Foreign Affairs Citoyen Bula for the assistance that they gave in this affair. Without that help it is by no means certain that a successful outcome could have been achieved. I think that the House would want us to convey our congratulations to the acting high commissioner, Mr. Hennessy, and his very small staff for the way in which they handled the situation.

We have an assurance from President Amin that the details of the compensation will have to be worked out by officials who will shortly be visiting Kampala.

I should like to associate myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends with the congratulations and good wishes expressed by the right hon. Gentleman.

I want to ask about the position of British subjects in certain overseas territories. Is the Minister convinced that the Foreign Office does as much as some other countries—the United States and Switzerland come to mind—to draw the attention of British subjects to conditions in some countries in which they might choose to live? Is he sure that the Foreign Office takes sufficient steps to ensure that people understand the risks that they take when the settle in countries with political systems somewhat different from our own?

The answere is "Yes". I should point out that it would be difficult to live in Uganda without recognising the circumstances of life in that country. It has not been without some publicity. The British community in Uganda, which comprises a relatively small core of people, is dedicated to that country. They have strong reasons for staying there. I think that they know well the situation and have made up their own minds.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to make compensation available to British-born residents recently expelled from Uganda.

We look to the Government of Uganda to pay compensation for losses of property suffered at the time of expulsion from that country.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that that is a very unsatisfactory answer. Does he appreciate that there are large numbers of British settlers who have been forced to return to this country in the past two or three years and who now are living in very depressing circumstances? As an example of this, in my constituency there is a man of great learning who is bringing up three children in one bedroom on £21 a week social security. Ought not this disgraceful situation be put right by means of the Government giving some financial assistance to these people who at the moment have absolutely nothing since they were forced out? Will the hon. Gentleman speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about them?

I appreciate the position that many people are in, but it is long-established policy that, in peace time, Her Majesty's Government do not compensate their nationals in respect of losses or injuries sustained in territories outside their jurisdiction. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised this matter with General Amin in his recent talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of relations between the United Kingdom and Oman.

Our relations with Oman are very good. Our exports to May this year are three times the equivalent 1974 figures. Many of these goods contribute to civil development, which absorbs one third of the budget.

What attitude are the Government taking to the efforts of the Arab League to secure a settlement of the rebellion in the area? Does my right hon. Friend regard the proposal put forward for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Oman as reasonable and sensible in the circumstances, if a settlement can be achieved?

We have warmly welcomed the position of the Arab League Conciliation Commission. In May 1974, when it was established, the Sultan of Oman readily received its members and gave all the information for which they asked. The sad thing was that they were not admitted to the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen. That inevitably made their task more difficult. We hope that they will be able to continue with that task.

When those from outside Oman who are seeking to overthrow the Sultan cease doing that, there will be no problem about the withdrawal of other troops. The responsibility lies with those who are seeking to overturn not only a long- standing friend of Britain, but a country which is making very rapid progress.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the House will welcome the clear words at the end of his statement, in which he made it evident that the Government recognise that the war in Oman is continuing only because the so-called rebels are supplied and encouraged from South Yemen? Bearing in mind that Oman commands the entrance to the Gulf, and what we have recently learned about the building of Soviet installations in Somalia, is it not clearly in the interests of the West, and particularly this country, that stability should be preserved in Oman?

There is the question of stability in the whole area, but our commitment is to Oman. Oman is being challenged, but the challenge, by those responsible for it, is also a challenge to the stability of other countries in the Gulf.

Are the numbers of British troops seconded to the service of Oman still kept secret, as they were under the previous Government, or is that information which the present Government are prepared to release to the House?

There are about 200 British seconded personnel serving in the Sultan's armed forces.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to visit Namibia in the near future.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a heavy responsibility for the solution of the problem of Namibia and South Africa's refusal to relinquish its illegal occupation of that territory rests with South Africa's major diplomatic and economic supporters, of which this country is one? What actions are the Government proposing to take to bring further effective pressure on South Africa to obey the rulings of the International Court, the Security Council and the General Assembly of the United Nations?

We take every opportunity to bring home to the South African Government our feelings on the matter. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised the importance which we attach to the full freedom of Namibia in his recent discussions with the South African Foreign Minister.

Is the Minister aware that there is to be a constitutional conference on the future of Namibia this year, at which each of the racial groups will be represented by two members, which will settle the future of that State on either a federal or confederal basis?

My right hon. Friend expressed to the South African Government our view that the political constitutional changes proposed do not go far enough.

Is it not a fact that the British Government, together with the Governments of the United States and France, have taken considerable political risk in vetoing a recent resolution at the Security Council on this question? Would not that give us substantial leverage with the South African Government? Are the Government using their influence accordingly to seek to bring about a solution which will provide not merely for constitutional advance, but for independence for the territory as a whole, as the United Nations has demanded?

That is our attitude and view. We shall take every opportunity to express that viewpoint. We could not support the resolution, because of the reference to Chapter 7 and what would have flown from it. Nevertheless, we will take any initiative to ensure that the full constitutional and political progress of this territory is guaranteed.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the United Nations' demand for independence for Namibia as a whole. Will he have regard to the fact that as between the Ovambo people and the other racial groups there is by no mean unanimity about this? Does he recognise that self-determination for the various racial groups may in some circumstances conflict with the suggestion of a single Namibian State?

It is for the people themselves to decide on all political and racial matters within the territory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what observations he has made in response to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly (17th December 1974), which invited Governments of member States to forward suggestions regarding a review of the United Nations Charter for consideration by the 30th Session of the General Assembly.

Our reply to the Secretary-General of 29th May stated that in our view the Charter does not require amendment and that it would be appropriate to consider changes in procedures and techniques which would not involve Charter amendment but would increase the effectiveness of the United Nations and its organs.

The full text of the reply is available in the Library.

Would the Minister care to tell us whether the Government consulted other countries before making these observations?

We have had informal discussions with other countries. These issues are discussed with our colleagues, but basically this was the considered reply of Her Majesty's Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attack made by Dr. Kissinger, the United States Foreign Secretary, upon the behaviour of certain nations inside the General Assembly should not be used as a pretext to weaken the essential Charter of the United Nations?

I agree that it is of the greatest importance that the Charter and its procedure should be fully respected. As there have been proposals from some sources that certain countries—in this instance, Israel—should be expelled or suspended, it was right that there should be some warning of the consequences. In the view of this Government, such steps would seriously damage the prospects for the successful negotiation of a settlement of the Arab/Israeli dispute and would gravely damage the credibility of the United Nations. We believe in the universality of the United Nations as well as strict observance of its Charter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us have recognised the fact that membership of the United Nations has trebled since its initial establishment in 1945, due mainly to the fact that ex-colonial States have been recognised as independent nations in their own right? Will he further accept that his own Government's recognition of the special needs of Scotland, and the recognition of these other countries as separate nations by the establishment of separate representation at the United Nations, means that this Government should have included in their recommendation the request that the Scottish and Welsh assemblies should be able to send national representatives to the United Nations?

These, basically, are matters for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, but I must say that the carrying out of Her Majesty's Government's policy has always been through Her Majesty's Government and not through any separate part of the United Kingdom. I think the House would wish it to remain in that way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the plans of the Hong Kong Government for the provision of free secondary education for all who want it; and what progress has been made to date with the implementation of those plans.

The Hong Kong Government have not announced such plans. However, the number of secondary school places is being expanded. These are heavily subsidised and a generous system of fee remission is designed to ensure that no child is denied secondary education on financial grounds.

Will the Minister of State accept that the whole object of the Chinese population in Hong Kong is to improve itself, that traditionally it has paid the greatest attention to education, and that his reply is therefore extremely disappointing, in the light of the support that the Chinese population afforded the Hong Kong Government at the time of the 1967 riots, and the strenuous efforts of the population concerning education in view of the very patchy standards and unreasonable charges in the private middle schools, where in some cases, to my personal knowledge, there have been instances of corruption?

Certainly the Hong Kong Government would like to move faster, but education plans must be kept within the colony's financial capabilities, with due regard to other development priorities. The Hong Kong Government's plans are to make the three years of secondary education available to all children and a further two years available to 40 per cent. of them, but, because of the budgetary restraint to which I have referred, this will not now be possible before September 1980.

While applauding the magnificent efforts made by the Hong Kong Government in education, may I ask the Minister to turn his mind to an equally important state in Hong Kong—the state of corruption? Will he comment, following the Godber case, on what progress has been made by the independent corruption commission?

I would ask my hon. Friend to put down a Question on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the CSCE.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest state of the mutual force reduction talks in Vienna; and the conference on European Security and Co-operation in Geneva.

I will, with permission, answer this Question and Question No. 19 together.

As regards the CSCE, I have nothing to add to what I said during yesterday's debate.

It is disappointing, as the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend on 26th June, that there has been little progress in the MBFR talks after nearly two years of negotiation. I hope the conclusion of the CSCE will create the right political climate for progress to be made in Vienna.

May I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the important part they have played in achieving not only a balance of advantage to the West in the CSCE but also, in my judgment, an overall balance in each basket individually? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the timing, the level and the aims of follow-up procedure? Does he agree that a successful CSCE by itself is only a limited step down the road to détente, and that in any case détente in itself can never be a substitute for defence?

I said all these things yesterday, but the hon. Gentleman and I have ideas which so coincide that I cannot resist repeating my remarks this afternoon. Of course, there has to be a pause between the summit and the follow-up machinery, but the formal follow-up has to be an inventory of the sucess of CSCE, and an opportunity for those countries which have not carried out the promises inherent in the declaration to be accused and told that they have much to do and much to improve upon.

Concerning the other aspects of CSCE, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman congratulated the Government on what we achieved. I am sure that there has been substantial progress and that the entire conference will result in a better relationship between Eastern and Western Europe in the years that lie ahead.

Will the Minister of State agree that it would be a setback to détente if CSCE were delayed, particularly in view of the progress already made, and will the Government do everything they can to see that the conference takes place this month or next, despite the baying of certain cold warriors?

The Government are anxious—indeed, I expressed my anxiety yesterday—that the summit should take place towards the end of July or in the first few days of August. I expressed that view because I believed and feared that, were the summit not to be held then, much progress and much achievement would be sacrificed, and many things which are very worthwhile in terms of European peace and security might not be achieved. But I have to tell my hon. Friend that those countries which are preventing a summit, or at least are not prepared at this moment to endorse that proceeding, are not cold warriors. They are neutral countries, in the main, which believe that there are a number of areas where progress has to be made which has not yet been made. We regard it as our duty not to trample their views underfoot by saying that this is a conference for the major Powers. We respect the wishes of the neutral countries and we hope that their wishes can be met by 30th July. If they are, a summit shall be held.

Since one part of the Question and one part of the Minister's earlier reply was to the effect that the MBFR negotiations had not made much progress, will he remind the House—including the wet warriors—whether there has not been a substantial increase in the forces of the Warsaw Pact in the interim?

Again, I said yesterday during the debate—indeed, the Morning Star took me to task for it this morning—that there has been a substantial increase in the Warsaw Pact forces during the period of the MBFR talks, but I wonder whether it is wise to hark continually on that—perhaps the blame is equally shared by the hon. Gentleman who mentioned it today and I who mentioned it yesterday—and whether we should not concentrate on the object of MBFR in Vienna to obtain considerable force reductions in both pacts. That considerable reduction has to be a mutual common ceiling, and that will be difficult to achieve, but the West has to go on pressing for it.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the CSCE may not be the ultimate and final answer in providing the fullest co-operation and all the ordinary things that ordinary people desire, it is essential that conferences of this nature should be called, and that our country should participate, and will be give an assurance to the House that he will consider making statements to the House from time to time on the progress of developments after the conference has ended and the real hard work begins?

In some ways it will be more difficult to give progress reports on the achievements of CSCE than on the two years of the second stage of that conference. What I can promise my hon. Friend—and I have no doubt the House would promise me—is that there are a number of aspects of the CSCE agreement which we shall all want to keep under constant review. I am sure that very many right hon. and hon. Members have family cases in their constituencies where they expect the reunification of the family as a result of the CSCE agreement. If they have not obtained that reunification, and if the countries which are parties to the agreement do not adopt that civilised course, the House will want to be made aware and hon. Members will want to remind the Foreign Office of these duties to any person, and to see that they are implemented.

With regard to the Vienna part of the Question, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the announcement by the United States Defence Secretary at the last NATO summit, when he said that the Soviet Union is currently spending 20 per cent. more than the United States on military research and development, 25 per cent. more on the procurement of arms and ammunition, 20 per cent. more on its general purpose forces, and 60 per cent. more than the United States on its nuclear forces? In view of those facts, and at the risk of his being again attacked by the Morning Star, will the right hon. Gentleman say now that Her Majesty's Government will not support any further reductions unless they are genuinely balanced by reductions on the Soviet side, and also that he will not support any further unilateral arms reductions by the United Kingdom?

I shall have to face the criticisms of the Morning Star as bravely as I can.

I am well aware of the figures to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention. It was for that reason that I drew attention yesterday to the increasing forces of the Warsaw Pact and said that the CSCE in itself did not justify any reductions of forces or in the preparedness of the Western Alliances. But all, East and West, have a strong vested interest in obtaining mutually agreed reductions in the forces of both the great pacts. I hope that we can ensure that that state of affairs is brought about, if not in the immediate future, at some time between now and the next two or three years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future constitution of Anguilla.

The Anguillans have accepted Her Majesty's Government's proposal that a new and separate constitution should be provided for Anguilla giving a substantial measure of internal autonomy. When agreement on the details has been reached the constitution will be provided by means of an Order in Council made under the Anguilla Act 1971.

I am glad to hear that. Meanwhile, will the Government do everything possible to encourage reputable investment in the island? Ever since the last notable invasion of Anguilla, it has been under a constitutional cloud which has prohibited investment coming in. Now that the people want work and investment, can Her Majesty's Government help?

I can give that assurance. Obviously the Government will encourage reputable investment in Anguilla.

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

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present. He paid an official visit to Portugal on 6th and 7th February, and the Portuguese Foreign Minister was in London on 27th June for talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

I thank the Minister of State for that reply, and I express my appreciation of what the Foreign Secretary has done so far in showing a close interest in the very critical state of affairs developing in Portugal. At a time when the democratic parties are locked in a struggle for survival against totalitarian forces in Portugal, will the right hon. Gentleman see that Her Majesty's Government do everything in their power to assist in this situation by maximising their contact with members of the Armed Forces Movement and the democratic parties?

There are two things to be said on that general supplementary question. The first is that many of us who had very high hopes for Portugal on 24th April found many of those hopes disappointed.

Secondly, there are substantial forces in Portgual who still fight and strive for and believe in the possible triumph of democracy. I agree that our duty as a Government and as a Parliament is to encourage those democratic forces and, unilaterally and through the EEC, we shall do everything possible to bring that about.

In view of recent Press statements to the effect that many Government supporters who have left-wing Socialist opinions are not in favour of democracy, is my right hon. Friend aware that we support the Government in every move that they make to ensure that in Portugal there is a democratic society with freedom for political parties and with religious freedom, and that it ill becomes some Opposition Members who never once raised their voices against the totalitarian regime of Salazar suddenly to become the champions of democracy? Have not such people double standards, when many of us fight against dictatorship whether it be in Russia, Chile or anywhere else?

I can only repeat what I said yesterday. There are very many people whose concern for democracy in Portugal seems to have developed rather late, and I endorse what my hon. Friend said about them. Not only is the attraction of support for a dictatorship a morally unacceptable position to me, but Portugal has demonstrated that in practice and expediency it is not a course that the Western democracies should pursue because the problems and tribulations likely to come about as a result of temporary support for such regimes are de-stabilising in terms of the West's state of democracy. Had we been more concerned about democracy in Portugal 50, 40, 30, or even 20 years ago, we would need to have less concern now. Our duty is to help those democratic forces, and my hon. Friend and I stand together on that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of British people living in Portugal who have never had reason to fear until now, but that now they have reason to fear? Can any steps be taken to protect them, their possessions and their property in the present circumstances?

I am open to correction, but I do not believe that there are people living in Portgual who have cause to fear for their lives. If the hon. Lady has examples which prove me wrong, I shall be happy and anxious to investigate them. However, I know that many people living in Portugal are worried about their property and investments. I have said to representatives of the Portuguese Government—I say it again today—that if the kind of democracy that I want to see is to be built in Portugal, they have an obligation to reinforce their intention to assist international investment and those people with property in Portgual. I believe that they know that that is in their interests and that sooner or later they will make that clear.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Middle East; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with the American Secretary of State about the Middle East.

Over the past month my right hon. Friend has had talks with the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Syria. He was also present when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw Mr. Rabin on 10th June. My right hon. Friend met Dr. Kissinger briefly on 12th July. The content of these discussions must, of course, remain confidential.

Following the abstention, at the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico, by the British delegation on certain resolutions, including Zionism, and following the recent vote of the Islamic conference at Jedda to decide to try to expel Israel from the United Nations, if a proposal for Israel's expulsion comes before the United Nations, how will the British delegation vote?

Dealing with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, at the International Women's Year Conference in Mexico, in every vote in which there was reference to Zionism, Her Majesty's Government made their position quite clear. It was only the final declaration that we did not support, and we abstained because, had we voted against it, we would have voted against the principal objectives of the declaration which were concerned with the rights of women. I do not think that my hon. Friend would have wanted us to do that.

I made it clear earlier that we feel strongly that it would be wrong, that it would be damaging to the interests of the United Nations, and that it would run contrary to the spirit and universality of the United Nations, for any action to be taken seeking to exclude a member State and—in answer to my hon. Friend—any proposal for the exclusion or suspension of Israel.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his unqualified support to the speech of Dr. Kissinger at the University of Wisconsin, condemning moves to exclude States from membership of the United Nations? Does he agree that, although the move of the conference at Jedda to expel Israel from the United Nations would be unfortunate at any time, it is especially unhelpful at this moment, when peace negotiations in the Middle East are balanced so delicately?

Such an initiative would be unhelpful. Following the conference in Jedda, we cannot at this stage say exactly what initiatives will be taken in the United Nations. I think that most of us hope that reason will prevail.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the International Women's Conference in Mexico the implications of the resolutions, which were passed by a substantial majority of the disunited nations, imply not just expelling Israel from the United Nations but the elimination of that country? What steps would Her Majesty's Government take to ensure that any threats of this type would be resisted strongly?

The House is well aware of the policy of Her Majesty's Government which, in this connection, is based, as it has been for years, on Resolution No. 242, which fully accepts the right of Israel to live within secure and recognised frontiers while at the same time recognising the need for Israeli withdrawal. These two policies have to be looked at together. It would be quite wrong to take one part of a policy and say that it is the whole of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Can the Minister confirm reports that we have heard this morning that the Egyptian Government are asking that the United Nations' presence in the area should be terminated? Is he aware that this will cause great concern in Israel, not so much for the immediate position but for the long-term prospects of a stable reliance on the United Nations? Can he say what the Government's attitude to this is?

It is true that the Foreign Minister of Egypt, Mr. Fahmi, has written to the Security Council. It is a matter which will have to be considered by the Security Council. It is important that the UN emergency force, as the right hon. Gentleman said, should be enabled to continue its task after the end of its present mandate on 24th July. The House will agree that the proximity of the date emphasises the urgency of achieving success in the current negotiations to reach a further partial agreement between Egypt and Israel.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will increase the two-thirds travel contribution rate when young Britons visit Common Market partners; and if he will also increase the hospitality allowances when young Common Market visitors to Great Britain come over to the United Kingdom on youth exchange programmes.

No, Sir. It is desirable that as many young people as possible benefit from the limited finance available to the British Council for this purpose. However, the expert groups which advise the British Council on youth exchanges have occasionally recommended an increased level of support.

As the Minister is probably aware, the present rather generous grant made by the last Conservative administration is soon to come to an end. When he is considering the terms and the level of grant for next year will he impress upon our Common Market partners that they should give similar amounts, on similar terms and conditions, to eliminate the present discrimination against youth in one country or another? Will he also make sure that he listens to the views of young people and not just to the organisations purporting to represent them, because often those organisations team with grown-ups—often in high places?

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has made and I shall do my best to fulfil his wishes. There are difficulties, due to our economic circumstances, about providing enough grants for these purposes. Certainly I should like to see more. We shall do our best not only to extend them where possible, but to make them realistic in terms of young people's understanding. This is important.

Going somewhat beyond the question of these visits, will the Minister of State confirm that in future the Government will be in the forefront in pressing for a European passport and for the elimination of all Community passport exchanges within the Community itself?

That was an aim of Mr. Ernest Bevin when he became Foreign Minister in 1945. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would like to see it achieved during his period in office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers.

My right hon. Friend attended a meeting of the Council this morning and is accompanying my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Heads of Government meeting this afternoon. He expects to attend the next Council meeting on 22nd July. This latter meeting has been arranged since I made my statement on EEC business for July.

Will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity of discussing with the Council of Ministers ways and means of democratising the structure of the Common Market, in particular by limiting the power of non-elected persons such as the Commissioners and giving more decision-making power to the elected representatives of the people?

There are a variety of opinions about direct elections. I shall be pressed on this matter later this afternoon when a rather contrary view to the one advanced by my hon. Friend will be put. This has to await consideration, deliberation and discussion. I ask my hon. Friend not to over-estimate the powers of the Commission during that period. The Commissioners are essentially the Community's civil servants and in that capacity are essentially servants of the elected ministers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he and his right hon. Friend will do their best to safeguard the interests of the English language when they go to the Council? I noticed that when I visited the Commission's Headquarters last month English was not used on any of the notices or signs, and there was no indication that we were Members of the Community. This reflects badly on the importance that the Government attach to matters of this kind. I am happy to say that Mr. Ortoli told me that he will put this right. What steps will the Government take to ensure that English gains parity with French?

I have read of the hon. Gentleman's specific achievement in this area and I congratulate him on it. I understand the point that he makes, which is of importance to those who are not as conversant in French as French Ministers are in English. We understand the problems of being a late arrival in the Community. I realise that matters of dignity are concerned in relation to the acceptability of the English language—and the Welsh language—and we shall do our best to meet its need.

In his next visit to the Council of Ministers will the Minister ensure, in view of the imminent establishment of the Scottish Assembly, that a Scottish Minister is permanently appointed to the Council of Ministers and that no decision affecting Scotland by the Council of Ministers will be taken without the express consent of that Scottish Minister?

The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the composition of the Council of Ministers as badly as he misunderstood the views of Scotland on membership of the EEC. There are no permanent appointees to the Council of Ministers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs represents the United Kingdom.

Precisely for that reason, will my right hon. Friend make clear to the House whether or not his right hon. Friend will today withdraw any objections he has about a rapid movement towards direct elections to the EEC Parliament, towards closer monetary union and towards a common defence policy between the EEC countries? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government informed the House of their attitude to these matters?

The House was informed of the Government's attitude in a White Paper published only five weeks ago. The Government's attitude has not changed during the past thirty days.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Council of Ministers that direct elections to the Common Market Assembly should not be instituted.

The EEC Treaty contains a commitment in Article 138 to the eventual introduction of direct elections. The Council will, of course, have to give the most careful consideration to the sub- ject before any recommendation is made to the member States about when and by what methods this might be put into practice. The Government are examining the question thoroughly in preparation for further discussions. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 9th June, this is a matter for consideration by all parties in this House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that before the referendum the Prime Minister said that the treaty would be applied flexibly? Does he accept that the referendum in no way committed us to direct elections? Does he not also agree that direct elections in for instance, a system which provides one representative for 11 parliamentary constituencies would be essentially undemocratic and a further step along the road towards a complete erosion of the powers of this Parliament?

Many of us spent a long time convincing my hon. Friend and others that the treaty could and would be applied flexibly. That remains our purpose and intention. As my hon. Friend will realise from a previous answer, there are a variety of attitudes towards direct elections. A large number of people who voted against British continued membership are, I understand, in favour of direct elections, and some who voted for continued membership are not in favour of direct elections. That demonstrates that there has to be a long period of consideration. This is a constitutional matter, and parties and interests outside have to be consulted. When the Government have heard their views and come to a conclusion they will report to the House.

Will the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister would not agree with the definition of his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that the meaning of the word "flexibility" should be extended to include a total disregard of solemn obligations?

Yes, that is why the initial sentence of my answer reminded my hon. Friend and the House that under Article 138 of the treaty we are committed to direct elections at some time in some form. That is our obligation, and it is one we must observe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to steps towards European Union outlined to the Belgian Prime Minister during his recent visit to the United Kingdom.

It is Mr. Tindemans' task to try to define what is meant by European Union. The Government's view on the future development of the Community was outlined to Mr. Tindemans on the lines set out in the White Paper on Membership of the European Community: Report on Renegotiation.

Does the Minister agree that the European Community, as such, will not continue to exist as an institution for any length of time unless there is a movement towards European Union? Will he also take the opportunity to remind his hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) that democracy, which the hon. Gentleman so desires, is certainly not obtained in this House now, but that we would hope that it will be obtained in the European Parliament in the future?

I believe that the essential democratic function of the Community is exercised through the Council of Ministers, but that is a matter of dispute between the parties, particularly those parties which cannot anticipate in the immediate future being represented on the Council of Ministers.

As regards European unity, the hon. Gentleman may well be right in saying that the Community cannot continue if it does not move towards union. I am certain that the Community cannot continue if it moves over-rapidly towards union. This is a subject which must be approached with caution and discretion, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the fact that unless effective economic union is created, with the transfer or resources to industrial as opposed to agricultural activities in the Community, the creation of political institutions is a waste of time?

If I understand my hon. Friend aright, I agree with him. The Community can move towards integration only at a time when the countries within the Community begin to have levels of growth and economic activities which are parallel. Many of the movements towards union would be of a disastrous character for the economically weaker members of the Community were we to move towards it precipitately, without getting something like economic convergence.

What must happen initially in the Community is a common attitude towards foreign policy and economic policy—questions which make it appropriate for us to begin to discuss the concepts of union after we have discovered that the prosperity of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the Republic of Ireland too, is in some way parallel to the prosperity of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Federal Republic of Germany.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the EEC Commission report proposing the establishment of an independent EEC Government.

Her Majesty's Government's views on the future development of the European Communities remain as set out in Command 6003. The Commission's report will no doubt be taken into account by Mr. Tindemans in the preparation of the report which he is to produce for the Community Heads of Government. Copies of the Commission's report have been made available in the Vote Office.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) that the British electorate did not vote in favour of turning the Common Market into a political federation in the recent referendum?

Yes, Sir.

Does that then mean that the Government are against a federal Europe?

Yes, Sir, it means exactly that. But it also means that the Government understand that the prosperity and prospects of the EEC are likely in some ways to be influenced by the progress we make towards integration on a number of specific matters. The Government will be prepared to look at these specific items of integration to see whether or not they are in Great Britain's interest.

A few minutes ago the Minister said that the Commissioners are the civil servants of the Community. Does he consider that it is in keeping with that that one of the British Commissioners recently called for further unification of the Centre and the Right in the Community, to strengthen their side against the Left?

The reason I described the Commissioners as civil servants is that they do not have executive power to carry out major decisions without the approval of elected members. They are a different sort of civil servant from ours, in that they may from time to time say things which I would regard as inappropriate for British civil servants to say. They may say things which are undesirable, or even bizarre; but that does not mean that they are not civil servants.

Is not the central fact that any change in the institutional structure of the Community and, a fortiori, any initiation of an independent EEC Government, requires an amendment to the EEC Treaty, under Article 236, and that that requires ratification by each member State? Is not the really important thing that the form and the pace of institutional development be fully in accord with the will of the peoples and parliaments of the member States?

If I can translate what I believe to be the right hon. and learned Gentleman's very precise question into my own crude language, I think he was saying that the speed with which we move towards any of these imagined federations or unified Governments can be determined by the House, dictated by our will on the speed. If he is saying that, I wholeheartedly agree with him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will introduce proposals designed to improve liaison between bodies representing Welsh interests and the institutions of the EEC.

Full account is taken of Welsh interests under the existing arrangements for the representation of the United Kingdom in the institutions of the EEC and for the formulation of the Government's policies on EEC matters.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the EEC is opening a full-time office in Cardiff, as it is in Edinburgh. Does he not feel it appropriate for Wales and the Welsh Office particularly to have a full-time office in Brussels to represent Welsh interests and for Wales to have a permanent base there similar to the office that Bavaria has in relation to the EEC, if Wales is to have direct representation on the permanent commission of the United Kingdom in Brussels and, in due course for the Welsh Assembly to have direct links with the institutions of the EEC?

As regards the Welsh Assembly and its direct links, presumably with the European Assembly, this must be decided as part of our general deliberations on direct elections and things that go with that. On direct representation within the Commission, suspecting that the hon. Gentleman might draw my attention to the German example I have examined that. I do not think it is as direct and precise as he suggests. The German model is rather like the British model. Through the decisions of the national Government, the unified national Government, the representations and the interests of various parts are properly observed, and I think that is what happens in Britain.

Is it not true to say that the office in Cardiff, in any case, was a pre-referendum Commissioners' gimmick and that now they are significantly embarrassed by the applications coming in from all over the remainder of the EEC for equally fruitless establishments at all the assorted parts of the Community?

The establishment of the office in Wales is not fruitless. There are all sorts of ways in which the Principality can, if it chooses—if its industry and its local authorities choose—benefit from provisions of the EEC. It ought to benefit from the regional development fund and the social fund. The office in Wales ought to be able to explain how those benefits can be obtained.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the expected output of the oil companies in which a 51 per cent. stake has been agreed.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has now completed negotiations with the oil companies on participation; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further negotiations are proceeding with oil companies regarding the British Government's participation.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many oil companies have now surrendered in principle a 51 per cent. interest in their North Sea assets, as a result of his negotiations.

As I explained to the House on 25th June, we are having constructive and detailed discussions with a substantial number of companies with interests in the North Sea. The discussions will inevitably take some time, but I shall be keeping the House informed of progress. Four corn-panics have agreed in principle to 51 per cent. Government participation in their commercial oilfields in the North Sea. Estimates of the output of individual companies are kept confidential, so as not to damage the companies' commercial interests.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the four companies he has named are minor ones? Does he agree that in regard to the major oil companies, for us to gain a 51 per cent. stake, reserve powers of compulsory purchase will be needed? Will he assure the House that when the Bill for reserve powers against trade unionists to keep wage claims down to £6 comes before the House he will also recommend to his Cabinet colleagues that there should be reserve powers to buy the 51 per cent. stake in the oil companies? Does he agree that it would make a welcome change for reserve powers to be used to carry out Labour Party policy?

I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in believing that the four companies concerned can be described as small companies. I am in discussion with 20 companies, large and small, United Kingdom and foreign, and these discussions are proceeding very satisfactorily.

I am very hopeful that we shall conclude these negotiations without having any recourse to reserve powers, and I hope that we are equally successful in the case of our industrial policy.

As nationalising 51 per cent. of the North Sea will cost about £1,000 million, and yet the Government have declared that it will he on a basis of a no-loss, no-gain in profits to either the companies or the Government, what is the point of proceeding with this damaging, inflationary and doctrinaire exercise?

The hon. Gentleman has asked the same question in almost the same words on many previous occasions. I do not complain that he worries about the point like a dog with a bone, but he is confusing cash flow with costs. Any money that the Government advance in terms of the North Sea will represent a wise investment, in the interests of the British people. It will be virtually risk-free and will come back in a relatively short time with an appropriate additional return. Accordingly, the hon. Gentleman is mistaken not only as to the consequence but in his speculation about the amount of money involved.

Bearing in mind that these secret talks have been going on for about eight months, and agreement has been reached with only four out of a total of about 40 companies involved, is there not a danger that oil production will be delayed as a result of those protracted negotiations, at a time when our balance of trade deficit in oil is running at over £200 million a month? Does not my right hon. Friend think that, in order to expedite our plans for participation, additional legislation is necessary, instead of just continuing to pussyfoot around with the oil companies?

I hope that my hon. Friend does not find it unwelcome that the negotiations are conducted in private. I hardly think that it would advance our interests if they were conducted otherwise.

As regards hastening the delivery of North Sea oil, it is not in the least delayed by the negotiations, and certainly would not be hastened by the kind of suggestion that my hon. Friend has in mind.

Do the Government still intend to take an overall 51 per cent. share in the North Sea oilfields? What legal drawbacks is the right hon. Gentleman finding in the negotiations? If he succeeds in obtaining 51 per cent. participation in the fields on a no-gain basis, will not that mean that the Government are involved in a face-saving gesture to perform the miracles of the manifesto with no intention of carrying them out in fact?

The answer to both those questions is "No, Sir".

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to approach the Arab oil countries to obtain the money to invest in the oil companies that the Government propose to take over? Have the Arab countries expressed any desire to lend money for such a purpose?

Again, the answer to both questions is "No, Sir".