asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council, as a threat to the peace of South-East Asia, the current large-scale slaughter in Cambodia.

No, Sir. The Government deplore the systematic violations of human rights which have occurred in Cambodia. But the Cambodian actions, abhorrent as they are, do not, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, constitute a threat to international peace.

Why these double standards? When some event takes place in South Africa or Rhodesia the United Nations rises in its wrath. Will not the Government reconsider this matter, practise what they preach and take some positive action about the genocide of these people?

With regard to Southern Africa, South Africa and Namibia, the Government have always contested that such situations represent a threat to peace. We are entirely consistent in our approach to these things. With regard to Cambodia, however much we may deplore the situation there, it is clear that it is primarily a domestic matter and, therefore, not a matter for the United Nations.

Will my hon. Friend consider approaching the Inter- national Red Cross to see whether it can become involved in the depressing situation in Cambodia?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that one of the unhappy aspects of the situation in Cambodia is the difficulty that we have in obtaining reliable information about what is happening there. There would be very great value in the International Red Cross taking some action of the kind that my hon. Frend has suggested, but I cannot take responsibility for that.

Is Cambodia a member of the United Nations?

Yes.

Why?

Does not the passivity of the international community in the face of an almost Hitlerian scale of slaughter in Cambodia call in question the Declaration of Human Rights and, indeed, the validity of the Nuremberg trials? Ought not the Government now to take an initiative on this matter in the United Nations?

I have already expressed my own and the Government's condemnation of the kind of activities that we have seen or heard about in Cambodia over the last year or so. If it were to be taken up in the United Nations, the main responsibility would be on the neighbouring countries that are mainly affected. So far, the United Nations has not decided to intervene in what is an internal question. If anything, it is a question for the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I would be glad to see that body discuss the matter.

Is the Minister saying that nothing can be done to raise the question of the slaughter of 1¼ million out of a population of 7 million people in Cambodia? Is there not something that the Government can do to raise the matter positively in one of the council chambers of the world?

I have mentioned one body that could be concerned with a matter of this kind—the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. I would welcome that commission discussing the matter.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

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

I hope to find a suitable basis for resuming negotiations that will lead to a peaceful transition to majority rule in 1978. It will, of course, be the chief topic of my forthcoming visit to Africa and a major subject to be discussed at the end of the week in London with Secretary Vance.

Is not the statement of the Rhodesia Government yesterday saying that Mr. Smith is still prepared to have a two-year transition to majority rule in certain conditions? Has not the time now come for the Government to establish an authoritative British presence in Rhodesia, which would help to work out arrangements for the interim period, including arrangements for the election of an African leader for that period?

I hope the hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation of Mr. Smith's statement, but, as I understand it, the problem about that statement is that he was firmly tying the two-year majority period to the creation of an interim Government. That means a recipe for indefinite delay. The world—and certainly the British Government—expects a two-year period of majority rule to start from the time when Smith himself made these commitments. We ourselves have asked for majority rule to start from March 1976.

rose—

Order. I shall come to the Government Back Benches after I have called the other two hon. Members whose Questions are being answered in this group.

Now that the Geneva initiative has indisputably failed, is not the only course to invite Rhodesia to produce its own solution and when something acceptable and reasonable has been put forward to seek to impose some form of plebiscite, perhaps with American help? In this connection, is not Bishop Muzorewa the most hopeful figure on the African side?

It appears that the hon. Gentleman is advocating what is often called an internal solution. He will know that the United States Government have firmly said that they believe that this is not the way forward. That is also the view of the British Government. The problem is that Rhodesian opinion goes much wider than those who are currently in Rhodesia. What is at issue—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are entitled to their views. What we need is a stable solution that will last and not the production of something that does not meet the legitimate aspirations of the black people for black majority rule in a period of time after free elections. That is what is at issue.

How does the right hon. Gentleman imagine that he will achieve what he calls a stable solution if he rules out the possibility of any discussions with Mr. Smith in Rhodesia on his forthcoming visit to Southern Africa, if he also rules out—as I understood from his earlier reply that he did—the possibility of permanent British representation in Rhodesia and if he also continues to refuse the possibility of some reference to the Rhodesian people to determine who should lead an interim Government of that country?

The hon. Gentleman has assumed that I have ruled out three things that I have not ruled out. The first question is on a matter on which there is another Question on the Order Paper, and I should prefer to answer it when that Question is reached. The second question—whether it is the right time to establish a British presence in Rhodesia—I have not ruled out, although certainly I do not think it appropriate at present. As to the question of consulting Rhodesian opinion, that is very much one of the issues that one wishes to discuss. This is best done if one recognises that Rhodesian opinion goes outside the immediate confines of Rhodesia. Many Rhodesians are outside Rhodesia. What we need is a settlement that will bring about the cessation of guerrilla action and produce peace and stability around Rhodesia's borders. That is one of the issues.

Since Mr. Smith made a commitment to majority rule within two years, is it not the case that he has sought every opportunity to slide out of that commitment? Does not the statement yesterday lead to the final repudiation by Mr. Smith of majority rule within two years? In those circumstances, how can there possibly be a peaceful solution?

My hon. Friend's reading of that statement is more accurate than the other interpretation. I hope that that is not the case. I certainly do not wish to rule it out myself. I wish to have discussions with Mr. Smith in Capetown. I hope that he will think very hard before he rules out the possibility of majority rule within two years, that is, majority rule in 1978.

Will my right hon. Friend's conversations with the front line Presidents include discussion of the possibility of an international peace-keeping force in Rhodesia—either a Commonwealth force or a United Nations force?

I am perfectly prepared to consult and discuss any aspects, but it is a fact of life, whether we like it or not, that at present it would not be possible to put a United Nations peacekeeping force into Rhodesia. We have to accept realities, harsh though they may be. There may come a time, at a particular moment towards a peaceful settlement, when such a force could have a stabilising influence. I certainly do not rule it out of the question, but we shall look at it when the circumstances arise.

As what should matter to this House are the wishes of the people of Rhodesia, for whom we are responsible, why does the Foreign Secretary rule out an internal solution?

I think that it is dangerous to talk about an internal solution. That is becoming a shorthand term for a solu- tion that does not carry conviction with all those people who are representative of black nationalist opinion. That is the question. At this stage to rule out those black nationalists who are outside Rhodesia would be a recipe for continued violence and continued guerrilla activity around the borders. What is surely to be hoped is that black African opinion can be combined together to fight democratic elections inside Rhodesia under a supervised system that we can all respect. That is what I think all hon. Members on both sides of the House want to see.

May we wish the Foreign Secretary success on his maiden voyage to Africa? Does he agree that the first thing that he must establish is whether Mr. Smith is still committed to African majority rule in two years? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is not the first time that there has been ambiguity in the language of Mr. Smith on constitutional matters? Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the whole lesson of the Monckton and Pearce Reports is that unless there is African consent any constitutional settlement will be doomed to disaster? Therefore, does he not agree that it is vital to have a referendum not only on choosing a leader for Rhodesia as a whole but on any interim agreement that is put forward?

I agree that it is fundamental that there should be African consent. That was accepted by the Opposition when they were in Government. We have all recognised that this is the necessary ingredient for stability. I, like the right hon. Gentleman, hope that Mr. Smith really does mean majority rule in two years from when he first made that very important statement. I pay great tribute to Dr. Kissinger for having brought that forward. The danger that Mr. Smith now seems to be implying is that it runs only from when an interim government is established of which he has to be a part. That is a recipe for indefinite delay, and that would be unacceptable to world opinion and, I think, opinion on both sides of this House.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his continual repetitive references to Rhodesians outside Rhodesia seem to put in question the adherence to the fifth principle, which was that nothing of a settlement would be achieved without the consent of the Rhodesian people as a whole? That is surely the essential background upon which we are all based. In those circumstances, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the suggestion made by my hon. Friends today, that we should now be sensible enough to realise that, whatever Mr. Smith thinks, we should have a presence in Rhodesia able to guide us on how to consult majority opinion, is really an essential? Does he not think that that would be the most welcome outcome of his own visit to Africa?

I respect the way in which the right hon. Gentleman put his question. Concerning the Rhodesian people as a whole, I confirm that that is strongly my view. Whereas I was drawing attention to some people outside Rhodesia, we must never forget that the vast bulk of the population who need to be consulted are still within Rhodesia. They are also both white and black. I believe in a peaceful solution, and I wish to have a situation in which white Rhodesians would be happy to stay in Rhodesia and contribute to peace and stability there.

Secondly, on the question whether we should have some form of permanent presence there, there are arguments over that. I am quite open-minded, and I have not closed the door to such a presence. There is no doubt that we are not as fully informed as we would wish to be about what has happened in Rhodesia. Some way in which this could be achieved clearly would be of benefit, but clearly it could not involve recognition of a régime that is illegal and is in rebellion against the Crown. However, were we to reach some firm agreement about this, I should be open-minded about it.

I allowed a much longer time than is normal on that Question, but we shall have to go quicker now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Heads of Governments he expects to meet during his forthcoming tour of Southern Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what up-to-date progress he is abe to assess for a successful outcome of the constitutional crisis in Rhodesia in the context of his official visit to Southern Africa.

As I told the House on 1st March 1977,

"I for my part stand ready at any time to go anywhere and talk to anyone if I judge that it will make a genuine contribution for a peaceful settlement."—[Official Report, 1st March 1977; Vol. 927, c. 205.]

I have no plans for visiting Rhodesia, but if the situation appeared to warrant it I would of course be prepared to go.

The House will be delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to go to Rhodesia. Would not now be a very suitable time for him to go, and would he not gain a great deal more from meeting Rhodesians, black and white, in Rhodesia than he will gain from meeting President Podgorny's friends, particularly President Machel, the harbourer, shelterer and comforter of the murdering guerrillas?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman makes a serious contribution to what is a serious issue. He knows that I am seeing people who hold all forms of opinion. He knows that in Cape-town I am seeing Mr. Vorster and that I shall see Mr. Smith. At this moment I do not judge it right to go to Rhodesia, but I do not exclude it. Much will depend on the circumstances, on the reception that I get and on what is said during the time that I am in Africa. All I hope is that Mr. Smith will not keep to the line that he appeared to be pursuing in his statement yesterday.

When my right hon. Friend is in South Africa will he be seeing Sir David Scott, the British Ambassador, who in a recent speech in Capetown boasted of Britain's good will to South Africa to the extent that he said that the only four times that Britain has used its veto in the UN Security Council have been in favour of South Africa? If that is a true reflection of the Government's position, it should be wholly condemned. If not, will my right hon. Friend bring back the ambassador permanently to this country?

I shall be seeing the ambassador when I am in Capetown. I have read his speech. It has been misreported in a number of directions, not least in the direction to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. As I understood it, it was a strong plea to opinion in South Africa to recognise strongly-held world opinion about the racial policies that were being pursued in South Africa and the need to make changes and to modify its position, so that its present policies on apartheid would not be as repugnant to world opinion as they currently are.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever we may feel about Mr. Smith's record, he has over the past few weeks introduced measures designed to ease race tensions in Rhodesia in spite of European opposition? When he goes to Southern Africa will he acknowledge the introduction of those measures and give some encouragement to Mr. Smith?

I welcome any step in the right direction. I must tell the House in all honesty that the difficulty that some people in Rhodesia seem to have found over the Land Apportionment Act is a gnat compared with what they will have to accept in majority rule. The resistance to the Act and the difficulty that some of them have found in respect of it does not augur well to a commitment to majority rule within the time scale that we are discussing. However, any movement is to be welcomed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise the new régime in Laos following the arrest and detention of the King and his immediate family.

The Government recognised the Lao People's Democratic Republic on 5th December, 1975. The reported arrest of the former King of Laos, who abdicated in November 1975, does not alter the legal position.

We have heard with regret and disquiet the reports of the ex-King's arrest, although no official announcement has been made.

I am grateful for that reply and for the fact that the Minister regrets that His Majesty has been a prisoner of the Communists. Is the Minister aware that His Majesty was a constitutional monarch who took no active part in politics within his country? In those circumstances, could the Minister use his influence with the provisional Government to secure the King's release and the release of his family, who are known to me personally?

Unfortunately, the position at present is very obscure. We know little more than what we have learned from the reports that the hon. Gentleman seems to have read. We shall certainly see whether we can make inquiries and we shall express our concern about the ex-King's fate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what latest discussions he has had with EEC and NATO allies on the Belgrade review conference.

Intensive discussions on preparations for the Belgrade review meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe are continuing in the political co-operation machinery of the Nine and in NATO. This subject will be considered at ministerial level on 18th and 19th April in the EEC political co-operation context and on 10th and 11th May in NATO.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House when it is expected that the main part of the Belgrade review conference will begin? Will he assure us that Her Majesty's Government, together with our allies in NATO and the EEC, will be pressing that the meeting, contrary to what the Soviet Union wants, is held at top political level and mainly in public, and not merely between officials and mainly in private?

The preparatory meetings of the conference will be held at the end of June and in July. It will then be decided exactly when the main conference will take place and how long it will last. At that stage the procedural matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised will be decided. I think that the House as a whole hopes that at least a part of the conference will be in public, when the strongly-held views of all members of the conference can be expressed, including opinion about all aspects of implementation of the Helsinki Agreement. However, most of us would also accept that more useful progress would probably be made if at least a part of the conference consisted of confidential discussions.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most important objectives for the West at Belgrade is to make it clear to the Soviet Union that an interpretation of détente that enables it to go on subverting our societies and supporting change by violence throughout the world is not acceptable to the West?

One of the main purposes of the meeting will be for all the Western members in particular to express their views about their interpretation of détente and the ground rules, for example, for peaceful coexistence between the two halves in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's view will be expressed on that occasion. Most of us accept that detente is a complex process, which involves a number of aspects. The question of human rights is by no means the only aspect of concern, but it is one that many people will feel to be of the greatest concern to many Western countries.

Will the Minister use his influence, and encourage his right hon. Friend to use his, to ensure that the House is consulted on the preparatory steps for the Belgrade conference? Many Members on both sides feel that the House will necessarily have to be involved in the matter before the initial conference starts again.

I understand the concern that must be widely felt in the House and that has been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that the House should be involved in this process. I understand that there are some who feel that there should be a debate in the House. That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the views that have been expressed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what positive steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to commemorate 1977 as the International Year of the Child as agreed by the United Nations.

The United Nations has agreed to commemorate 1979 as the first Year of the Child.

No decisions have yet been taken on the nature and extent of Government involvement, but it is our intention to participate fully in the commemoration of 1979 as the International Year of the Child.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, but I remind him that there was a great deal of reluctance on the part of the British Government to commit themselves to participate in the International Year of the Child, as correspondence that I had with the Department before my hon. Friend was there will testify. Will he ensure that initiatives are taken by the Government so that human rights for children are recognised here and abroad, and will the Government act also in respect of race relations?

Our reluctance, such as it was, concerned the nature of the commemoration, if any. I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in recent times there have been many "years" for this, that, or something else. Sometimes it has been questionable how much value was obtained for the cause in question. We were concerned that what took place would help children throughout the world. I take note of what my hon Friend says and I shall try to ensure that our contribution is of the sort to which she refers.

Will the hon. Gentleman spare a little pity for the children of Cambodia? You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the admonition

"Suffer the little children to come unto me."

In that light, will the hon. Gentleman provide some help to the children who have fled Cambodia into neighbouring countries, who need medicine and food now? Will he try to concert his policies with those of President Carter, whose stand on human rights has struck a chord in many parts of the world? Will he now do something about the problem of the children of Cambodia?

I have already expressed the Government's profound concern at the appalling atrocities that have been reported from Cambodia over the past year or so. I agree that we should try to do everything in our power to ensure that adequate assistance is given to all refugees, including children. As the House knows, we have been contributing generously to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, which has a programme designed to help refugees from Cambodia. We shall be giving £350,000 this year for that purpose.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the issue goes beyond refugee children? Is he aware that in some parts of the world—for example, Ethiopia—children are held in prison without trial? Will the hon. Gentleman grasp the opportunity that the Question offers him to reconsider this matter and to take a more positive stand against the treatment of innocent children in so many countries?

I share the hon. Gentleman's hope that this occasion—the International Year of the Child, which has now been decided on—will be used as an opportunity to express the concern of the international community about children in the situation that the hon. Gentleman describes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent conversations with the United States Secretary of State so far as they concerned policy on Namibia.

My right hon. Friend's discussions with Mr. Vance remain confidential, but there was a substantial measure of agreement on our approach to bringing about early self-determination and independence for Namibia.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United States and Western Europe between them command enough economic power to compel South Africa to get out of Namibia, and that if it does not do so not only will the savage racial war escalate in that part of the world but it will bring a greater conflict in East-West relations and a danger to detente?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said about the serious situations that may develop in Namibia and Southern Africa generally if South Africa does not change its policies. It has remained our position and it has been the position of the United States that we do not think that economic sanctions against South Africa will work.

Could the Minister publish at some stage the criteria that the Government produced for recognising an independent Namibia and say then, or now, whether the same criteria would apply to the Transkei?

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the terms of Security Council Resolution No. 385, which lays down the views supported by all Western nations in the Security Council, he will see the terms and criteria that we would use. They certainly do not fit the Transkei.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with the Lebanon.

We have close relations with the Government of the Lebanon and have assured them of our willingness to do all we can to help the reconstruction of the country and the return to stability after the tragic war.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer is very much to be welcomed? Is he also aware that it is estimated that there are at least 250,000 people in the Lebanon very severely disabled as a result of the civil war whom the Lebanon cannot help from its own limited resources? Will he give serious consideration to the possibility of British medical and rehabilitative help, if he has not already done so?

Last year we provided £500,000-worth of humanitarian assistance. I shall certainly bring the point my hon. Friend has just made to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development.

Is the Minister aware that the Lebanese Government have made it clear that there is a desperate need for technical assistance from us and that they have discounted financial assistance? Is he also aware that Her Majesty's Ambassador, together with engineers, recently visited the docks in Beirut, which were grievously damaged in the civil war? Will he assure us that every effort will be made to give British technical assistance to what is an outstandingly important commercial centre and a centre for free enterprise and the Western world in the Middle East?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I assure him that in the aid we are providing technical co-operation is a priority. We shall be carefully considering what we can contribute to reconstruction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether discussions with the Government of the Argentine about the future of the Falkland Islands have begun; whether they include the issue of sovereignty; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will bring forward proposals for consulting the people of the Falkland Islands about their future relationship with the United Kingdom.

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

As I told the House on 1st March, we are considering whether negotiations on the future of the Falkland Islands including sovereignty might take place. No negotiations have yet begun but if they do there will be full consultations with the islanders.

Will the Minister go rather further than that and confirm that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands without the full consent of the islanders, and that no pressure will be put upon them by the Government to accept any such change against their wishes?

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Official Report of the debate on 1st March and the full statement that I made in response to questions he will realise that we have given very full assurances. I went so far as to say that the Government would not bring proposals to the House if they were not acceptable to the islanders.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary said that the question of sovereignty would be decided in this House? Will he now give an assurance that the people of the islands will be given the chance of a referendum before any change of sovereignty is envisaged?

We have not even begun to negotiate yet, let alone have proposals which might be brought before the islanders or the House. It is therefore premature to anticipate in what form consultations can take place. We did not discuss this with the islanders when I went there. Clearly, this matter will come up, and how consultations will take place at a later stage will certainly be considered.

Do I understand my hon. Friend's statement today to mean that no change will be made without the express consent of the people in the Islands?

As I have told the House over and over again, we certainly shall not bring forward any proposals which are not acceptable to the islanders, and they must obviously receive the consent of this House.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, so as to allay some anxieties stemming from Press reports, that it is impossible for Argentinian business interests to gain control of the land of the Falkland Islands, because this requires the authority of the Secretary of State, which would certainly be withheld?

I would rather clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. First, no land on the Falkland Islands can be alienated without the permission of the Falkland Islands Government, which is hardly likely to be forthcoming. Secondly, the British Government would not support such a move.

In view of the widely authenticated reports on the systematic suppression of human rights in Argentina, which my hon. Friend may have seen—the Amnesty report and others—does he think that this is an appropriate moment to enter into any kind of negotiations with that Government about the possible transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands?

We all deplore abuses of human rights, wherever they occur. Nevertheless, the welfare interests of the islanders require our discussing these matters with the Argentinian Government.

Will the Minister say what aspect of sovereignty is negotiable?

This is one of the major difficulties of apparently reconciling the almost irreconcilable. Until we have had some discussions and negotiations, I could not forecast what their outcome might be.

Will the Government help the islanders in their present economic situation by making a decision to extend the airport runway, and incidentally help them to preserve their status?

The extension of the runway, costing more than £5 million on current estimates, is a serious and important project, but it seems to us that on present evidence it would be hard to justify it. It could bear very heavily on the current revenue problems of the Islands. We have not closed the door to the project, but we need more convincing that it is viable.

Will my hon. Friend on all occasions please refrain from using the phrase "whole-hearted consent"? We do not want to deceive the Falkland Islanders in the manner in which the ex-Leader of the Tory Party tricked this nation and dragged it into the Common Market.

I should not dream of using the undesirable terminology of Conservative Members.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government intend to take in the light of his public pronouncements on the human rights aspect of foreign policy.

We will systematically take human rights considerations into account and give a high priority to them as part of the many factors that have to be considered when making foreign policy decisions. Our aim will be to protect and enhance human rights everywhere and we shall take whatever action, private or public, we consider will be effective.

In view of the considerable stress the right hon. Gentleman laid in his speech on 3rd March on striking the right balance between morality and reality, will he now publish his Department's league table of human rights in different countries in the world, so that the House may more accurately assess the way in which the Government are responding to, say, Chile and South Africa on the one hand and the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia on the other?

I do not intend to publish the list. This was one of the considerations that we had to take into account when we decided to look systematically at the question of human rights. We had to consider whether the mere existence of such a list would cause problems in relationships between the British Government and other Governments. The decision was taken to have the list as the only way of being serious about human rights, on the strict understanding that we would not publish it. That was decided after very careful thought, and it remains my decision.

As my right hon. Friend is to meet Dr. Vorster, will he convey to him privately or publicly our abhorrence of the apartheid system in that area, the occupation of Namibia, and the support that he is giving to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

Some things are private and some things are public. My abhorrence of apartheid is public, and I shall state it wherever I am.

In the light of that answer, what action will the right hon. Gentleman take about those British subjects at present imprisoned in Angola for no crime known to international law?

It is important to try to get our relations with Angola on a better footing. That is certainly something that I wish to do. Many representations have been made about this issue, so far unsuccessfully. I think that the overall object is to improve our relations with Angola, and then some consequences may flow from that. I certainly understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern, which I share.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's reference to action everywhere include action within the European Economic Community, in regard both to bringing proper pressures to bear outside and to work on the possible formulation of a charter of rights in the socio-economic context within the Community, following the generalised action taken by the common declaration of the three political institutions of the Community?

A lot of work has been done on the common declaration. which I am due to sign formally in Brussels on 5th April. I hope that we look at human rights everywhere, not excluding the EEC. The price of championing human rights is a little inconsistency at times. There will be occasions when there is a strong case for public denunciation but when, for a variety of reasons—economic, political and social—the denunciation may need to be done privately. Therefore, we shall not always be consistent. No doubt Mr. Bernard Levin will have something to say about the alleged inconsistencies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

At the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which will be held in Brussels on 5th April.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the EEC leaders that the United Kingdom Parliament is having a free vote not only on the method of direct elections but on the principle? Taking account of the fact that half the Labour Back Benchers have declared themselves against the principle of direct elections, will the Foreign Secretary accept that if he wants to get this legislation through he will need more than just a Labour-Liberal alliance; he will need a Tory one as well?

I accept that my hon. Friend is the first to advocate a belief in national independence within the EEC—

I am advocating that we get out.

I do not believe that my fellow Foreign Ministers are interested in the procedure that we adopt. They are interested in our using our best endeavours to keep to the May-June 1978 target date.

Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind the enormous political importance of the Middle East to Europe, and does he agree that it is preferable that European policy on this issue should be in advance of that of the United States? After President Carter's statement on a national home for the Palestinians, is there not a danger that we are trailing behind? Will he discuss this when he next meets EEC leaders?

It is important that there should be a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli dispute. One does not pursue that objective by talking about being in advance of or trailing behind the United States. We want a rational, positive policy. That objective has been broadly maintained, and it has been helped by the EEC forming a view of Middle East problems and keeping in close liaison and in general agreement with the United States. I do not see us either in advance of or behind the United States; I see us working together with them.

If we are unable, even using our best endeavours, to hold direct elections in May or June of next year, will it not cause our European partners not only to be unhappy with us, but to set back their own direct elections?

The Council decision made it clear that elections in the nine countries would proceed simultaneously over a four-day period. That decision would have to be changed if we were unable to stick to the target date and there was to be a go-ahead in other countries. Our partners expect us to use our best endeavours, but many other member States are finding difficulty in their legislative processes. Each member country must look after itself in these matters and each tries genuinely to honour any agreement to which it has put its name.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets his EEC colleagues, will he impress upon them the sense of frustration felt among the leaders of the fishing industry? Unless the EEC agrees quickly to a 50-mile conservation zone around Britain, the EEC ports will be blockaded not only by French boats but by Scottish boats as well.

There was a debate in the House on Monday night, and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will make a statement later today about the Council meeting. His actions and the Government's actions over the last year or so, when negotiating these matters, show that we are perfectly prepared to stand up robustly for justified British interests. We have never disguised our dissatisfaction with EEC policies on fishing, agreed in 1970.

In view of the very poor performance of the Common Market compared with the hopes of those who voted for our entry, will the Foreign Secretary welcome the setting up of a Select Committee, evenly balanced between hon. Members who are for and those who are against our membership, to go into the worthwhileness of our membership, or will he not dare to do so?

I am always in favour of Select Committee procedure. I think that it adds to the scrutiny of the Executive by the legislature. However, I think that that issue was put to the British people and they answered it decisively.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EEC colleagues on progress towards direct elections.

There has been no recent discussion of direct elections in the Council of Ministers.

Has not grave damage already been caused to Britain's reputation and interests within the EEC by the delay in bringing forward a Bill for consideration by the House? With the possible exception of Belgium, all other countries are well ahead of us in their preparations for direct elections.

I do not accept that at all. More damage has been done by Conservative Members being obsessed with the belief that we are doing ourselves damage. The Government's position is clearly understood. In fact, I think that it is more clearly understood by our Continental partners than by Opposition Members.

When the Minister mets his colleagues in the Council, will he make clear that so-called hard-line resistance to the EEC does not encompass opposition to genuine international co-operative measures? Does he agree that no official Government White Paper or statement has outlined any obligation to direct elections at all, and that there is every reason for doubt about this matter?

Whereas I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's observations, I strongly disagree with the second part—

It is a fact.

My hon. Friend may have a loud voice but his shouting does not change the fact that implicit in a positive vote in the referendum was a commitment to our treaty obligations, which include direct elections.

Since the Government's deal with the Liberals irrevocably means a commitment to holding direct elections, will the Minister dispel the unworthy belief that the Government are deliberately postponing a decision on the method of election until it is too late to have any method other than an ignoble kind of gerrymandering to safeguard the Labour Party?

That is not even worthy of the hon. Member. It is the Government's intention to publish a White Paper soon and then put the matter to the House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British people have no desire to go any further into the quagmire that is the Common Market? They remember the days of the referendum with nostalgia. That was when unemployment was a mere 800,000 and butter was 20p a pound. Unemployment has now reached 1,300,000 and butter is 50p-60p a pound.

Much as I admire and respect my hon. Friend, I fear that, even as in the past, his judgment does not accurately reflect that of the people of this country.

Will the Minister confirm that there is some perplexity in Britain on the voting pattern in direct elections? Will he explain how anybody can start a system in which the vote of a Member of Parliament from, say, Britain will be worth only one-fifth or one-quarter of a vote by a Member of Parliament from, say, Belgium or Luxembourg in the new directly-elected Assembly? Is that not wrong, and is there not something that the Foreign Secretary can do forthwith in the Council of Ministers before we go wholeheartedly into this scheme?

Obviously all matters concerning figures were discussed fully before we entered into our agreement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will agree that the figure that he gave suggesting that the vote of a United Kingdom Member will be worth only one-fifth of the vote by a Belgian Member was totally wrong and misleading.

Since the subject of direct elections is of major constitutional importance, should there not be a free vote in this House on the principle of direct elections?

I note what my right hon. Friend says, but obviously that is a matter for other people than myself.

Does the Minister realise that his reply to his right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) may cause a great deal of confusion, particularly as it conflicts with the robust assertion of the Government's intentions on the whole issue of direct elections? Does he not also appreciate that the Government's unqualified acceptance of the principle of direct elections, enunciated by the Prime Minister, commits the Government beyond all question and should not be subject to subsequent revision?

I repeat that that is a matter for other people than myself. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position quite clear in his statement to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to ascertain the progress that other EEC member States are making in preparing for direct elections to the European Parliament in May/June 1978; and what has been the outcome of these inquiries.

The Government are keeping themselves closely informed of the progress in member States. Some have introduced legislation to adopt the Community agreement on direct elections in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements; but none has yet introduced legislation covering the holding of the elections.

May not the Minister find himself further behind the preparations of his European colleagues if, in introducing legislation on direct elections, the Labour Government deny the principle of single member representation so as to make enemies of many pro-Europeans, who hitherto have been pledged to support such legislation?

No, I do not accept that.

Is not the question of direct elections a matter of monumental unimportance to the European Community? Should we not instead be considering the political implications of the Greek and Portuguese attempts to enter the Community before we bother with any further ridiculous fetishes that will produce a totally unrepresentative Assembly that is incapable of representing the views of the British people?

Having answered a number of questions put by my hon. Friend in the European Assembly at Strasbourg, I know her views, but I disagree with her views on this matter as expressed in Westminster as much as I disagree with them when they are expressed abroad.

What are the three main advantages of the PR regional list system of European direct elections?

That is a matter for each Member of the House when the proposals emerge.

A few moments ago the Minister said that it was implicit in the terms on which we joined the Community that there would be direct elections. He did not say that it was explicit. Will he quote any speech or anything in writing from which it can be understood that there shall be direct elections?

I should hate to quote from my own speeches, but I can refer my hon. Friend to those if he wishes. If he gave me notice of the question I could find other references as well.

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

I refer the hon. Member to the Written Answers that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Sir A. Royle) and the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 2nd February. Since that time the uniform passport has been discussed in the European Community Working Group on Passport Union but several outstanding issues remain to be resolved.

Will the Minister now give a definite assurance on this matter, unclouded by Foreign Office verbiage? In the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, will he refuse to agree to the imposition of a Europassport until this House has taken a decision on the matter? In giving his reply, will he refrain from using words such as "desirable" or phrases such as "This is a matter for the Leader of the House"? We should like a firm assurance that no action will be taken to finalise the matter until we have debated it and decided it.

I agree in the most categorical terms that the House should have an opportunity to discuss the matter. The timing of the debate must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Why cannot my hon. Friend say that the House of Commons "will" have such a debate and "will" take a decision? In view of the fact that there is no demand whatever among British people for this course, can we not tell our partners in the Common Market "Forget it"?

I assure my hon. Friend that nobody understands more than I do the strong feeling in this House on this matter. I give him my absolute word that what he and others have said has registered with us. We shall make sure that the House ought to have this opportunity, but the timing of the matter lies with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Is not the standardisation of travel documents far less important than the harmonisation of policies in Europe? Will the Minister leave the British passport alone and concentrate instead on making Britain a good citizen of the Community rather than the leading backslider that it is now becoming?

We believe that we can do nothing but strengthen the Community if we make sure that agreements reached by the Community, in whatever sphere of policy, genuinely reflect the interests of all the members of the Community and the British people, who are as much a part of the Community as is anybody else.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made by the Council of Foreign Ministers of the EEC to co-ordinate policy in respect of the North-South dialogue.

The Foreign Affairs Council on 8th March reviewed the Community's position in respect of the North-South dialogue. A common opening position for the Common Fund Negotiating Conference was agreed. The Foreign Affairs Council on 5th April will further co-ordinate the Community's position on the major issues arising in the CIEC, in which the Community participates as a single delegation. Meanwhile, the process of co-ordination is continuing at official level both within the Community and with the seven other industrialised countries participating in the CIEC.

My hon. Friend did not mention the Council of Ministers, on which we had a statement earlier this week. Is he aware that the Prime Minister drew a distinction between plans for "a" common fund and plans for "the" common fund? Will he say where any citizen of the EEC can find a specific authoritative statement dealing with what the Heads of State agreed, and what is the EEC's attitude to a common fund?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his usual careful attention to detail, will have scrutinised what the Prime Minister said in his statement after returning from Rome. It is clear that we are committed to working towards international commodity agreements and, as a Community, are prepared seriously to examine the rôle of a common fund in fulfilling that programme.

The Minister will recall that the Prime Minister has made clear that the Community proposes to call on countries of Eastern Europe to make a more adequate contribution towards development aid. How does the Community propose to undertake that task?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned that Eastern European countries have not been pulling their weight in this respect. We must now work out precise techniques to make the point clear.

What is the EEC's attitude towards expanding the resources of the World Bank?

In our general approach to development matters, I must remind my hon. Friend that we are the second largest contributor to the World Bank. That remains our position within the Community and outside.

Is the Minister aware of the extent to which Third World opinion is concerned by the degree to which the EEC, together with North America, is pre-empting the fossil fuel resources of the world while at the same time making it difficult for nuclear power to be made available to the Third World? Will he draw the attention of his EEC colleages to this problem?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that members of the EEC are well aware of this problem and give a great deal of time to considering the matter in depth, and that they will see how a fair and equitable policy can be worked out in the interests of the developing countries as well as of the industrialised world.

As well as being concerned with the aid effort from Eastern Europe, is not the EEC equally concerned with the aid effort from Japan? Will he take the opportunity, when he next meets Japanese Foreign Ministers, of suggesting that much of the disagreement on trading matters between Europe and Japan could be mitigated if Japan were to assume some of the aid burden within the world?

I recognise the force of what my hon. Friend has said, but that is a matter for the OECD and the Development Assistance Committee within the OECD.