asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many embassies are scheduled for closure in 1976; and if he will make a statement.

Our embassies in Nicaragua and the Malagasy Republic will be closed during the first three months of this year. My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for further closures of embassies or high commissions.

Will the Minister undertake to have further consultations with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on the defence implications of closing in particular the embassy in the Malagasy Republic without appointing a career consul in place of the ambassador? Secondly, will he now suspend any further closures of embassies pending the CPRS review and instigate economies within the present structure of the Foreign Service?

As I have said, there are no immediate proposals for closures and, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the matter will be considered in the CPRS review. Concerning Tananarive, the defence aspect is a matter for my right hon. Friend, but the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that apart from the fact that our High Commissioner in Dar-es-Salaam will be presenting his letters as non-resident Ambassador to the Malagasy Republic and the fact that we are appointing an honorary consul, we are retaining the services of a senior member of the locally engaged staff, and I think that this will be helpful in relation to business interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will direct all British embassies and missions abroad to reduce the total cost of entertainment offered by them in the coming year by 50 per cent.

No. I have already announced that there will be a 10 per cent. cut next financial year. To go further than that at this stage would be to anticipate the conclusions of the review of overseas representation already announced by my right hon. Friend.

Does not the Minister agree, however, that calls for economic stringency at home conflict with the steady increase in numbers and costs of our staffs abroad, increased expenditure on rentals and maintenance of their embassies and the extraordinary expenditure of over £7 million in the last five years on entertainment? Does he not agree that action is urgently necessary in this area if the general public are not to be left convinced that diplomacy consists of nothing other than endless cocktail parties and banquets? Will he take interim action, before the major review, to cut expenditure on entertainment abroad?

It is important that the House and the public should recognise that there has not been an increase in numbers in the Diplomatic Service. Over the past 10 years there has been a steady reduction in the numbers involved in spite of the fact that demands have increased, particularly in the promotion of our commercial interests overseas—and there could hardly be a higher priority. As regards entertainment, the House knows that I announced very recently that there would be a 10 per cent. cut in expenditure.

There has been a great deal of sniping at diplomatic representation overseas. The purpose of entertainment allowances is not to keep our staff happy but to promote British interests overseas. Our exporters know just how much this matters to them and to British industry at home. The Diplomatic Service is under fire from some quarters, but I believe that its performance is second to none.

Does the Minister recognise that we on the Opposition side of the House welcome the way in which he has resisted the constant sniping by members of the Labour Party at the Diplomatic Service? It is quite clear to many of us that although costs have risen considerably in Whitehall and overseas, the Diplomatic Service has managed to maintain a considerable service overseas for us. The British Diplomatic Service spends only ·32 per cent. of Government expenditure compared with the 1·3 per cent. which the French service spends.

I am bound to say that most of the criticism and snipings have come from the Opposition side of the House. I should think that about 10 times as many questions on this subject have come from Conservative Members as have come from my hon. Friends.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will confirm that it is the Government's policy not to give financial support to organisations indulging in terrorist operations, such as SWAPO, the Pan African Congress, ZANU and the South African ANC.

There has been no change in the Government's policy towards aid to liberation movements. We are prepared in appropriate cases to give political and humanitarian support for peaceful purposes. Of the groups named, SWAPO receives support, specifically for scholarships and other educational purposes.

Will the Minister use this opportunity to repudiate the decision of an official Labour Party committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), which has decided to give large sums of money to terrorist organisations without any qualification as to how that money is to be spent? Will he realise that unless he repudiates this decision, it will make a mockery of the Prime Minister's call to American citizens not to give support to the IRA and its terrorist operations in this country?

I have no responsibility for the Southern Africa Solidarity Fund, of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) is chairman. She wrote a helpful letter of explanation which has been published in The Times today. The Labour Party has a long and honourable tradition of support for liberation movements in southern Africa, but certainly they do not depend on funds either from the Labour Party itself or, less still, from the Government.

Does my right hon. Friend draw a distinction between those countries in southern Africa in which populations are held down by force of arms and denied any kind of democratic rights and those organisations rightly described as liberation movements? Does he agree that it is nonsense to refuse assistance to liberation movements and, when they turn elsewhere for help, then to brand them as Communist puppets, turn against them and support some other movement?

I draw a sharp distinction Many years ago I helped to set up the Spanish Democrats Defence Committee. That committee gave comfort and support to people who would play a full role in the democratic life of Spain. I draw a sharp distinction, but it is not right that we should give support in any military sense. We carefully ensure that none of the aid that Britain gives can possibly be used for weapons of violence.

If it is not Government money but Labour Party money, what is the position under the exchange control regulations of contributions made to overseas organisations which are not in any sense charitable?

That is a question that must be put to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not a question for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he intends to raise for discussion during his forthcoming visit to the People's Republic of China.

I hope to have wide-ranging discussions. The agenda for such talks is subject to agreement by both sides and with a view to strengthening the existing ties between our two Governments.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and wish him well on his visit. Will he comment on the remarks of Mr. Schlesinger in London that China is now NATO's best ally? At the end of the talks, will he try to frame a joint declaration with the Chinese Government condemning the military intervention of the Soviet Union in Angola?

I do not think that it will be helpful as part of my visit to China perhaps to inflame a dispute between the world's largest country and the world's most populous country. It is in our interests to have good relations with both countries.

Will my right hon. Friend be touching on the status and future of Hong Kong in his conversations?

I doubt it, but if the Chinese wish to raise anything about that matter I shall listen carefully to what they have to say.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of recent events concerning the treatment of British citizens in Chile, he will now impound the two submarines which were intended for Chile and ensure their retention in the United Kingdom.

The Government are keeping the future of the submarines under review.

Will my right hon. Friend take into account whilst reviewing this subject that torture and crimes by the Chilean junta continue and that to allow the submarines to leave for Chilean shores is almost tantamount to supporting its activities?

I do not think that the last part of my hon. Friend's question follows from the first. There is strong feeling about the actions of the Chilean Government, which I wholly share. However, when considering these matters we must realise that a different category is involved when we are talking about long-standing and binding contracts negotiated many years ago. We shall keep all these matters under review.

Would I be right in being encouraged by my right hon. Friend's answer that the matter of the submarines is under review? Will he confirm or deny that an export licence has been granted for the submarines? Does he accept that if there is change of government in a democratic society, different conditions may be imposed on a contract drawn with an earlier government in a particular historical era? Does he agree that we should view the submarines more in that light than in the harsher commercial light of selling them to a country that cannot afford to pay for them?

I do not know about the export licence. I am not sure whose responsibility it is to issue it, but I shall look into that. The question of commercial responsibility is a matter that turns more on the Law Officers' view of the situation. Her Majesty's Government would need to take note if Chile were to fall into defeault with its payments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any poposals for facilitating the collection of maintenance payments where the husband, although a British subject, is resident abroad in a country with which Great Britain has no special arrangements; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions relating to Maintenance Obligations. The United Kingdom proposes to ratify the Convention soon. Discussions are taking place with the Government of the United States of America to establish with a number of states reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is quite a problem for some people? Is he having discussions with British firms with overseas subsidiaries? When does he expect the arrangements with the United States to be complete?

We hope to promote these arrangements as speedily as possible with states within the United States. We have tried to make arrangements with Governments. We have already achieved such arrangements with most Commonwealth countries, the Republic of Ireland, South Africa and 35 other countries. Under the Hague Convention, the EEC and other European countries will be covered by the arrangements.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even where arrangements exist with countries such as Belgium and other States in the EEC, it is extremely difficult to get satisfactory arrangements for women who have been deserted by their husbands and whose maintenance payments are not being made? Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he can to take action in such cases and to improve the present unsatisfactory situation?

We shall always try to help in individual cases of hardship which are brought to our attention. The enforcement of these orders tends to be dealt with through the courts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures the Government have taken as a result of the signing of the Final Act in Helsinki on 1st August 1975.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to implement the Helsinki Agreement of August 1975.

The Government are in active consultation with other European countries about implementing the promises of the Final Act. We have taken up with the Soviet Union the question of working conditions for journalists, and we have good prospects for success. On the multilateral plane, we have been active in the notification of military manœuvres.

That is a very good answer. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is co-operation between his Department and the Home Office about visas being issued to those who wish to come to this country to implement the agreement at Helsinki by discussing, for instance, world-wide disarmament and other matters that will be discussed at the York forum in March of this year?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Our visa procedures are under constant review and individual visa applications are considered on their merits. We shall welcome those who come to forward the policy of détente, but not those who come for different purposes while appearing to sail under the same flag.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that since the Helsinki Agreement there has been a considerable effort in the Russian and satellite Press calling for increased ideological orthodoxy and vigilance in order not to hoodwink the unfortunate citizens of those countries into believing that liberty and détente are breaking in, unlike the unfortunate understanding of the Secretary of State for Defence?

What is true is that the process of détente is not a benefit conferred by the West upon the Soviet Union but a recognition of the mutual destructive powers of the two world super-Powers. It is not a benefit but it is something of value to both sides. Détente between States does not lead to an armistice in the war of ideas. That war is being continually prosecuted. It is my belief that those of us who are democratic Socialists have more to offer than anyone else in answer to that challenge.

Did not the Soviet Union at the Helsinki Agreement secure to a large extent its side of the bargain—namely, some kind of ratification of the status quo in Europe? In return for that ratification was it not felt that there would be greater freedom of movement and information between East and West Europe? Is it not time that we obtained more of our side of the bargain? Will my right hon. Friend consider calling regular meetings before the one that is scheduled next year so that public opinion in Europe may be mobilised on this issue? There is evidence that the Soviet authorities are to some extent sensitive to world-wide public opinion on matters of this kind.

I agree with my hon. Friend and disagree with the Leader of the Opposition when she says that the Soviet authorities are not responsive to public opinion. That is not my experience. I must say to my hon. Friend that we cannot expect dramatic changes overnight, and especially regarding those matters covered by Basket III. The Final Act was the beginning and not the end of the process.

The present position is that the Soviet authorities have agreed to our proposals for the introduction of a multiple exit/ re-entry visa régime. We granted such a visa to a Soviet correspondent in London. We have asked the Soviet Embassy to send in the passports of all resident Russian correspondents for similar amendments to be made to their visas. The Soviet authorities have now issued a number of multiple entry visas to British journalists in Moscow. This is a net gain. I hope that it will continue to be pursued, but I do not expect to change the world overnight.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the information in his possession about the measures taken by the Soviet co-signatories to the Final Act in Helsinki?

The Soviet co-signatories? The right hon. Gentleman will have to put down a Question, as I am not sure I fully understand it.

What have the Russians done?

If the right hon. Gentleman had first asked "What have the Russians done?", it would have dawned on my simple mind.

In addition to what I have said about the journalists, which is a beginning—we should not pooh-pooh it; it would have been impossible 10 years ago—the Russians have decided to notify us of military manoeuvres in Europe, in accordance with the Agreement. I do not think that they notified us of anything in Angola, but perhaps that is not within the principles of the Agreement. Certainly we should not write off this policy. If we do, there can be nothing but a return to tension and conflict. In the present state of the world and with so many unsolved problems, that would be a policy of despair. Therefore, we must work to make it succeed whilst keeping our eyes open all the time for the consequences.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to assist Mr. Raymond Legge, detained by the Saudi Arabian authorities; and what progress has been made.

Mr. Legge completed a prison sentence and is detained pending deportation. His case awaits review by the Ministry of Justice. We have asked the Saudi Arabian Government for a speedy decision and will continue to press for this. We remain in close touch with Aramco, his former employers, who are responsible for his welfare meanwhile.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is totally unacceptable that a British subject should be detained months after the expiry of his quite proper sentence for an offence against the Saudi anti-alcohol laws? Is he satisfied with the conduct of Aramco, his employers at the time? Will he reassure Mrs. Legge, who has been anxious over all these months of uncertainty, that her husband will be returned speedily to her? Could he go a little further than saying that all efforts are being made? Mrs. Legge has been under stress all this time. Her husband should have been home long ago. I am grateful for what the Foreign Office has done. However, will my right hon. Friend go a little further than he has today?

I assure my hon. Friend that we are following this case very carefully and have expressed anxiety about it. Mr. Legge has not been in prison or detention for the whole of the original sentence imposed upon him. He was released a substantial period before he had completed his prison sentence. I have no dissatisfaction to express about his previous employer, Aramco.

I well understand the concern of Mrs. Legge. Our consul was in touch with and saw Mr. Legge on 13th January. His health does not appear to be at risk. We are hoping that a favourable decision will be taken.

Regarding British subjects detained overseas, is the Minister aware of the call by over 150 hon. Members on both sides of the House for the release from detention of Mr. Garfield Todd, the former Prime Minister of Rhodesia? Will he inform the House what new representation the Government will make to the Rhodesian authorities to ensure that Mr. Todd may make his contribution to the negotiations presently taking place in Rhodesia?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend and I have great sympathy with that motion, which has been signed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Only two days ago I saw Mr. Garfield Todd's daughter and son-in-law and assured them that we would do everything we could to ensure the release of Mr. Garfield Todd, who, quite wrongly, has been in detention for four years without any conceivable justification. It is a deplorable situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent OAU Summit, he will now propose a resolution in the Security Council of the United Nations calling upon all foreign Powers to withdraw their troops from Angola.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will propose a meeting of the United Nations Security Council to consider the presence of foreign forces in Angola.

In the light of inquiries I have made I am not convinced that it would be helpful for us to raise this matter in the Council at the present time, but I shall continue to keep the matter under review.

Does the Secretary of State accept that Russia is interested not in solving tribal disputes in Africa but in naval bases, oil, and the spread of Communism—by the use of force, if necessary? Does he appreciate that had we tabled such a resolution in the Security Council, the USSR would have been forced to use the veto and exposed as the imperialist Power she is?

I dare say that the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that Russia might have been forced to use the veto. But the use of the veto is not a very good way of solving problems. I am more concerned to see a Government of reconciliation set up in Angola in which the MPLA recognises and takes in the other factions there than to score a debating triumph in the Security Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely wrong that the political future of this important country should largely depend on the relative military power of two external nations which, in the eyes of many countries, are violating international law by the presence of their military support? Would there not be an added advantage if the maximum possible publicity were given to the situation as that would perhaps help to bring about the compromise of a coalition Government, to which my right hon. Friend has referred?

It is undesirable, as my hon. Friend says. Her Majesty's Government, both privately and publicly, have consistently represented to all those concerned that the best contribution to peace would be to withdraw all external armed forces from that territory, and we shall continue to do so. We do not need more publicity for that purpose. It is well known. What is needed is the patient discussion and negotiation which is going on behind the scenes at present and, alas, must continue to do so. I should love to score a public diplomatic triumph. It would be a bit of a change. However, on the whole, I do the best service I know for this country by pursuing these matters in a way which I think will achieve the best success.

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on being alone with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in earning an honourable mention in Soviet dispatches. In view of his reference to Angola in reply to an whether he regards the intervention of the Soviet Union and her satellites—in particular, Cuban satellites—in events in Angola as compatible with the spirit of détente?

It would be churlish of me to dissociate myself even from the thought of being alone with the Leader of the Opposition. Soviet policy is complex and many-sided. I doubt whether the simplistic approach adopted by the Leader of the Opposition has contributed to public understanding of the problems of this super-Power.

Does my right hon. Friend deplore the recruitment of mercenaries in this country to be sent to Angola? I understand that some have gone today. Will he take some action to stop this practice?

I certainly deplore the recruitment of mercenaries—it is highly undesirable in present circumstances—just as I deplore the entry of the Cubans upon the scene, as I have made clear privately to the Cuban authorities. We must take a consistent attitude on this matter. It is still possible to retrieve some of the basic mistakes that have been made in Angola. We must continue to work to do so.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British policy towards Angola.

Her Majesty's Government are opposed to any external intervention in Angola and call for a ceasefire and a political settlement which would enable the Angolan people to determine their own future freely.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the main aims of the Soviet Union are to detach the whole of Southern Africa from Western influence and that this is the reason behind its operations in Angola? Is he aware that it is assisted in these designs by certain actions by the Labour Government and the Labour Party, such as the denunciation of the Simonstown Agreement and the giving of money to groups whose main weapon is terrorism?

I do not think that the Simonstown Agreement has very much to do with this matter, even though the hon. Gentleman tries to drag it in by its tail. The Soviet Union is intent on strengthening its position in the continent of Africa ad elsewhere when the opportunity serves. The question is what the right response is and how that response should be made. That is why I object to the simplicity of some statements on this subject. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, who has great experience of Africa and its peoples, will not under-estimate the force of national or tribal identities, which may be stronger than any alien ideology.

Is my right hon. Friend in full accord with the Labour Party's decision to support the MPLA?

The Labour Party has consistently entertained friendly relations with the MPLA—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question in my own way. The MPLA is an important element in any settlement in Angola, but it is not an exclusive element in that country. Although the Labour Party has had connections with the MPLA, the Government should not ignore the interests of other peoples in that territory.

Is it not now clear that the key to the protection of the interests of the non-Communist world in the situation of Angola and the consequences that may flow from it lies not in Angola itself but in the leverage of one kind and another that can be exerted by the Western world on the Soviet Union? Is the Foreign Secretary consulting his EEC colleagues and the United States about the use of leverage?

The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is "Yes, both". I promoted a joint statement by the EEC—a statement which I hoped would have been made publicly before the OAU meeting, but I was unsuccessful. However, representations have been made. I have discussed this subject with the United States. There is a great deal in the hon. Gentleman's comments about leverage, but we must not ignore the feelings of the African people. I believe that in the long run that factor will be decisive.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the freezing and expropriation of British property in Portugal.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 26th November 1975. Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to achieving an early and satisfactory outcome to all the cases involving British property owners. We have continued to raise this matter with the Portuguese Government at the highest level.

I welcome certain developments in Portugal towards a freer society and more respect for the rule of law. However, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any progress in this matter?

There has been a good deal of progress by the Portuguese Government. They have made clear that, in a changing and difficult situation their power to implement the sort of régime they want to see in the agricultural industry is limited. I have no doubt that the Portuguese Government will do their best, and we shall continue to press them to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his meeting with the CBI on 13th January.

I had a discussion about recent international developments with the President and senior officials of the Confederation of British Industry when they called on me on 13th January. This was the second such meeting with them and was in conformity with the practice I have introduced of inviting the International Committee of the Trades Union Congress and the CBI to discuss international matters with me at intervals.

Using his vast experience as Foreign Secretary, will my right hon. Friend point out to the CBI the damage done in many instances by overseas investment by multi-national companies which use those investments simply to exploit cheap sources of foreign labour? Did the recent reports that the Chairman of Vickers might use nationalisation compensation to increase this type of overseas investment not confirm that it is about time we took a much tougher line with these unpatriotic speculators to stop them shifting money out of the country?

I did not discuss the matter with the CBI at the time, but I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. The multi-nationals are a new phenomenon to which Governments have to pay increasing attention. The European Community is paying attention to this matter and I know from my contacts with the TUC that it is also dealing with the subject. It is clear that the boundaries of activities by multi nationals can conflict with member States. When that happens, those activities must be restricted.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that interference by Governments of all parties since the war in decisions by companies to invest where they think most profitable has in many cases resulted in a loss of jobs?

No, Sir. I would not agree with that statement. It reflects a simplistic view of the changing face in international affairs of conglomerates and multi-nationals. The longer I stay in this lob, the more I realise that trade is becoming more and more influenced by Governments throughout the world. I sometimes wonder whether we in this country have a system sufficient to meet what we encounter overseas. I have particular thoughts in that direction. I am not being ideological about this matter. It is a practical question of how we deal with overseas trade. This may need new instruments in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Dr. Kissinger in regard to CIA activity in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

The United States Secretary of State and I have had a conversation on the matter.

Although we all accept the legitimacy of military intelligence throughout the world and recognise that it is indulged in by the CIA in this country and elsewhere, does the Minister recollect that in the recent evidence given by the CIA to a Congressional committee of inquiry the CIA claimed a second interest—namely, political intervention in the hope of influencing political developments in other countries? Did not the CIA claim to be involved not only in military intelligence but in political subversion? Does the Minister agree that that is a legitimate rôle for the CIA to play?

It is not for me to say what is a legitimate rôle for the CIA to play in the United States. What it does in this country would be a matter for Her Majesty's Government. But so far I have no evidence to lead me to raise the matter with the United States authorities.

Has the right hon. Gentleman thought of discussing with the Soviet ambassador KGB activities in the United Kingdom because, despite those activities, the ambassador appears to display ignorance about free speech in a democracy?

I have not thought of doing so, but I welcome the fact that the Soviet ambassador has embarked on public controversy in this country. I hope that it means that our ambassador in Moscow will have the same facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the development of the European Youth Foundation.

The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe decided in 1975 that the Foundation, set up in 1972 for a trial period, should continue on a permanent basis.

We are glad that the number of international activities financially supported by it and organised by the younger generation grows yearly. We are considering ways in which we can continue to co-operate with the Foundation.

Why were we told on 20th November, following the announcement about the EYF continuing on a permanent basis, that the grant had been stopped while at the same time we had agreed to double the size of the European Youth Centre? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be inconsistent to double the size of the Centre but have no funds to send British youth to further foreign exchange in Europe in this way?

The hon. Lady will have noticed the statement of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on 17th December that we were considering ways in which we could continue to participate in the European Youth Foundation and provide some measure of financial support. That was made after the statement to which she referred and I have nothing to add to what he said.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Government intend to produce their preliminary response to the Report on European Union by Mr. Tindemans, the Prime Minister of Belgium, submitted recently to the European Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to discuss with his EEC colleagues the report prepared by Mr. Tindemans on the future of the Community.

I welcome the realistic nature of Mr. Tindemans' broad approach of building on the Community as it now exists. The Report will be a useful stimulus to discussion about the development of the Community in the next few years.

I expect it to be discussed at the next meeting of the European Council at the beginning of April.

As the Foreign Secretary has already told us that the final decision on direct elections to the European Parliament, which are mentioned in the Tindemans Report, will rest with this Parliament, can he answer the question which the Prime Minister evaded at Question Time yesterday and tell us precisely what powers that Parliament will have? We now have the cart before the horse. We must know what these powers will be before we can reasonably discuss whether it is right to have direct elections. Will the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about this subject and define the powers in the Green Paper—and I hope that it will be green and not white—that is to be published?

I thought that the Prime Minister answered the question completely yesterday, but I shall do my best to restate the position. The basis of the direct elections will be the existing powers of the European Assembly, no more and no less. If these powers are to be changed, it will be only with the consent of the member States. I prefer not to include a summary of the powers in the green White Paper or white Green Paper, because I want it to focus on issues of mechanics and the decisions that will need to be taken in relation to the elections and not to be side-tracked on to these other matters.

The British people have never been consulted about direct elections. They were certainly not consulted during the referendum. Does my right hon. Friend therefore agree that another referendum must be held before we have direct elections?

I do not agree with my hon. Friend and I do not think that the British people would welcome another referendum on this limited aspect of the issue. There is no doubt that the matter was put to the British people in the referendum. I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said. If those who were against continued membership of the EEC did not raise this matter in the referendum campaign, they were neglecting their duty and hon. Members who neglected to do their duty at that time should not now complain to me.

What specific steps do the Government propose to take in the foreseeable future to avoid the terrifying prospect for this country, to which Mr. Tindemans alluded indirectly, that we shall be not only members of the lower tier of the Community in economic terms, but its poorest country on a per capita basis?

I do not accept the hon. Member's hypothesis. Whether there is to be a two-tier system will have to be discussed at the European Council and will require the consent of all member States before being introduced. I expressed my personal views in a speech in Hamburg last week and I think the debate should go on. I have to speak with some caution, because the Cabinet have not yet considered the matter, but I do not believe that a two-tier system would be to the benefit of the Community or of this country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Tindemans Report covers a much wider range of topics than just direct elections? Will he consult the Leader of the House about having an early debate on the Report?

I agree with my hon. Friend that direct elections play a very small part in the Report, which covers a wide area. I shall convey my hon. Friend's request to the Lord President. The only undertaking I can give today—because I have already consulted my right hon. Friend on this subject—is that we shall have a debate on direct elections once the White Paper has been published and consultations are taking place.

Do not recent events in Portugal, Angola and Lebanon under- score one of Mr. Tindemans' main points—that we shall not be able to defend British and European interests effectively unless we have a much more closely concerted foreign policy? Could not Britain play a great part in bringing this about, and what will the Foreign Secretary do to help?

We are playing a vigorous part in this matter. This is one area in which I feel very much at ease in moving. British experience, history and background enable us to take a lead in such matters. We have done so and shall continue to do so. We tried to do so over Angola, though we did not meet with complete success. There will always be failures as well as successes.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at this morning's meeting of the Labour Party National Executive Committee there was a unanimous decision that before the Government took a final decision on direct elections they should make sure that the Labour Party was fully consulted at a conference and had had an opportunity to consider the implications of such elections for this country?

It will be for the party to decide whether it wants to call a conference on the matter. As far as the Government are concerned, I have already begun consultations with the leaders of all parliamentary parties and have written to them on the subject. At a later stage, it will be for the Home Secretary to follow the normal course in these matters and to call together party organisations, such as Transport House and Conservative Central Office, to work out detailed proposals.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether we are to have a White or a Green Paper, or is there no longer any difference between the two? Can he say why so many hon. Members are anxious that the British people be consulted about everything to do with Europe except who represents them there?

I am a little in the dark about the colour of the proposed Paper myself. As I plan it at the moment, the first part will contain decisions which have to be reached at Community level, such as the total number of members of the Assembly and their distribution among member States. That part of the Paper would be white. But there would also be a number of questions which I hope to identify in the second part of the Paper dealing with the electoral arrangements here. This part would be raising questions, such as dual mandate, and not answering them. I am afraid that it will be a bit of a hybrid beast.

Will the Government give their support to Mr. Tindemans' recommendation that the Council should instruct the institutions to initiate action to evolve procedures for the protection of fundamental political, economic and social rights within the Community?

I note what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said. This matter will certainly be considered before we go to the European Summit.

One of the conclusions of this Report, which my right hon. Friend admits is important yet which we are not to debate, is that member States should submit a greater part of their external relations and problems to a common policy. Does my right hon. Friend go as far as that and, if not, will he tell Mr. Tindemans so at their next meeting?

I did not say that we would not have a debate. I am not in a position to say whether a debate will take place, because I have not yet consulted my right hon. Friend the Lord President. My experience leaves me in no doubt that the more European countries can work together on a common foreign policy, the stronger will be our influence in the world. As I wish to see British influence strengthened, I shall do my best to ensure that the Community itself works in that way.

The Foreign Secretary referred to his initiatives in the EEC over Angola. Does he agree that to call for a coalition Government and for the withdrawal of all foreign forces is like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted? Will he get in touch with our EEC partners and our NATO allies to see what steps we can take to prevent the Sovietisation of Angola and the disastrous consequences which would follow for southern and central Africa?

The right hon. Gentleman is talking of a policy enunciated when the balance of forces in Angola was different from what it is today, and he is seeking to apply that policy to the current situation. At the time the call made a lot of sense. It it had been accepted then, it would have been much to the benefit of the people of Angola. I said that I thought that a Government of national reconciliation was now required. In such a Government the MPLA would play a prominent, maybe a leading part. If we are looking for a solution to this problem and if there is to be peace in Angola, the other very substantial element of the people in that country must be involved. I do not believe that in the short run external influence will be extruded from Angola. However, knowing the African personality, I believe that in the long run it will be.

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

I shall see the Federal German Foreign Minister on 7th February on the occasion of the visit to this country of the Federal German Chancellor. I expect to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 9th and 10th February.

When my right hon. Friend meets these various people in various missions, will he explain to them that even after the referendum he was not the most fervent supporter of the the idea of direct elections? Will he also say that if the Labour Party conference comes out against direct elections, by 1978 or whatever the date may be, unlike the last occasion with the referendum he will accept the decision of conference? If as Foreign Secretary he cannot accept decisions of the Government and of the National Executive Committee, why continue to serve both?

I know that my hon. Friend would like to take my place on the NEC. However, I think that he will have some competition before he achieves that. As for the attitude towards direct elections, I think that my colleagues in Europe know the position exactly. I do not know whether there are controversies between the Labour Party conference and the Government. We have not yet had a conference, have we?

Does the Foreign Secretary consider that this country is committed in principle to direct elections, whatever any Labour conference may say?

Yes, Sir.

Commissioner Lardinois said in answer to me in the European Parliament that there was to be no re-negotiation of the common fisheries policy. Nevertheless, we hear constantly in this House, and even in the far north of Scotland, from one of the Scottish Office Ministers that there is to be renegotiation. Which is correct?

That does not seem to arise out of the Question, but I can never resist the blandishments of the hon. Lady and I shall do my best to answer. The 200-mile limit which the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference might decide to introduce this year would clearly add a great deal of impetus to the need to re-negotiate the common fisheries policy for the EEC. These events are to some extent inter-dependent and an official decision cannot be taken on the second until we have seen the result of the United Nations conference.

In the re-negotiation of the common fisheries policy will my right hon. Friend go for a 100-mile exclusive economic zone around these islands in order to maintain the employment of our fishermen and of the many thousands of people in ancillary industries who are at present suffering great distress in their living standards and employment prospects?

Ask Commissioner Lardinois.

We seem to be getting even further from the Question, but the broad answer is that in any negotiation of the common fisheries policy the special position of Britain, with its long coastline, will have to be properly safeguarded.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Angola is a test case of the Community's ability to act together in matters of common concern in foreign relations? Since the right hon. Gentleman said earlier that he was desperately longing for diplomatic success, will he take the lead in persuading the Community at least to condemn all foreign aggression in Angola, and particularly the Russians for preaching détente at Helsinki but practising the opposite in Angola?

I have answered many questions on Angola. I do not think that I can add much this afternoon, except to say that the hon. Gentleman's reference to getting a concerted policy only goes to illustrate a point I have made so often. There are nine individual member States every one of which can prevent a statement of common policy. I have never been able to get that fact across to some of the anti-Marketeers, but it happens to be the case. On this issue I was unable to get the agreement of all nine to a public statement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there might be one issue on which he could get agreement among all the States? When he meets the Federal German Chancellor and the other Ministers, will he convey the great appreciation in this country for the efforts that they have been making on the problem of Cyprus? Will he ask that they should redouble their efforts for the coming months? Many of our hon. Friends believe that an initiative from the EEC could help. While he is about it, will he come and tell the Select Committee how he is getting on?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". On the second part, I should not be agreeable to answering questions about my discussions with the former Turkish Prime Minister, which I understand to be the purpose of some of the questions it is intended to put to me.

No.

Yes. That is the message that was conveyed to me.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Tindemans Report contains some interesting expressions of opinion about aid to the Third World and about the Community's approach to the Third World? This is an area in which a greater degree of concertation of policy could take place. Will the right hon. Gentleman give his view about British aid policy in the light of the Tindemans Report?

This is becoming a catch-all Question and I must ask the hon. Member to put down a specific Question on that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the EEC Commissioner with responsibility for regional development.

My right hon. Friend meets Mr. George Thomson regularly in the course of Community business. He most recently did so during his visit to Brussels for the Council of Ministers on 20th January.

He has no firm plans for a further meeting, but he expects to meet Mr. Thomson again soon.

Will the right hon. Gentleman leave the EEC Regional Affairs Commissioner in absolutely no doubt that the Scottish Assembly with powers over trade and industry will retain control over and administration of industrial investment incentives in Scotland, free from EEC diktat? Will he also make clear that a self-governing Scotland will construct its own system of industrial aids and incentives free from EEC interference?

That is not so much a question as a statement of a number of prejudices most of which will not be fulfilled.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that of the assistance to development areas which has already been allocated from the EEC 50 per cent. has been allocated to Scotland? Is this not another example of Scotland's advantageous position and is it not time that the people of Scotland were told very clearly of the advantage which exists through remaining a part of the United Kingdom?

I have no doubt as to the truth of the implication of that supplementary question, but my task is not so much to underline the wisdom of the Government's attitude on the relationship between the various parts of the United Kingdom as to emphasise the other implication of what my hon. Friend says, which is the very substantial benefits that all the United Kingdom gets from membership of the EEC.

Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to rebut robustly the parochial, petty and ignorant accusations made by the Scottish National Party? Will he remind the House that this very morning the United Kingdom received funds from the EEC over 20 per cent. of which went to Scotland although Scotland has under 10 per cent. of the population?

I can rebut the ignorant propositions of the Scottish National Party only when they concern foreign affairs.