asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the outcome of his recent official talks with the Spanish Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to Madrid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his latest official visit to Madrid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his official talks with the Spanish Foreign Minister.

My visit to Madrid at the invitation of the Spanish Government marked the third in a series of meetings with the Spanish Foreign Minister in which we have agreed to work together on matters of mutual interest. During the talks, which were of course confidential, we continued our examination of the question of Gibraltar and also exchanged views on other international and bilateral subjects. The talks were useful and we have agreed to meet again in April.

I accept fully the propriety of the Government maintaining full contact with dictatorships of the Right as well as with dictatorships of the Left, but can the Secretary of State categorically assure us, first, that there will be no question of the Government supporting any application by Spain to join the Community unless and until it has full and free democratic elections and, secondly, that there is no change in the Government's attitude to Gibraltar and the assurances which have been given to the Government?

As to the first part of that supplementary question, we should be talking about something in, let us say, the 1980s which does not arise for the time being. When Spain applies for membership of the Community, as she will at some future date, the Community must be unanimous about the admission of a new member.

Is my right hon. friend aware that there are many of us on this side of the House at any rate who are not too much embedded in the 1930s to realise that Spain has changed and is changing and who are ready to welcome the kingdom of Spain into the fullest association with the European Community for strategic and other British reasons? Will my right hon. Friend also accept that we fully welcome his determination to ensure that Gibraltar remains British?

Yes, Sir. Spain is part of Western Europe and in due course I have no doubt that Spain will join the Community.

I welcome the suggestion that in future years Spain can join the European Economic Community, but does my right hon. Friend agree that continued attacks from the other side of the House on countries such as Spain, Turkey or Greece do not add to the unity or the future peace of Europe? Will he again confirm all the undertakings that have been given to the people of Gibraltar?

Yes; if such attacks are pursued in other quarters we shall have no friends left in the world before long.

As the Secretary of State said "when" and not "if" Spain applies to join—so that apparently it is not hypothetical—what is the British Government's attitude to such an application?

I cannot say that now. The Spanish Foreign Minister has said that it is likely to be the 1980s before this application is made.

Does the Secretary of State mean by his last answer but one that if Spain remains a dictatorship he will be happy to associate with her in the Community?

The right hon. Gentleman the Shadow Minister need not draw that conclusion now or in the future.

Then did the Secretary of State mean by his last answer but one that we would have no friends left in the world unless we associated with dictatorships?

No, but the way in which hon. Members opposite sometimes allow themselves to indulge in criticisms of other countries will mean that we shall have few friends left if they continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Solomon Islands Government's Special Select Committee on Constitutional Development and the action which is being taken.

The report was published in the protectorate last month. A motion to take note of the report was debated and passed unanimously by the Governing Council on 15th November. Decisions on the proposals in the report are to be taken in the protectorate after the new council meets in July next year.

Did the evidence which was gathered for this report indicate that at least the rural areas in the Solomons wish to maintain the closest links with this country? Are increased steps being taken to see that political education is being taken to that part of the protectorate?

Yes, Sir. I pay tribute to the thoroughness with which the delegates and members worked on the report and to the responsibility with which they made it. The change will be that there will be a Council of Ministers, if we accept it, but we have not yet received any proposals. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will press for the appointment of a United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights.

We shall again support the appointment of a High Commissioner for Human Rights when the matter is discussed by the General Assembly next autumn. Progress on this important proposal has so far been obstructed by the Soviet Union and its supporters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to press this proposal? As a large number of members of the United Nations on both sides of the Iron Curtain continue flagrantly to break the principles of the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, despite the fact that they are signatories to it, may I suggest that if one person of standing were given the responsibility of monitoring progress throughout the world in this respect it might make a small but helpful contribution to a solution of the problem?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The appointment of a High Commissioner is rather a stop-gap measure until the Human Rights Committee proposed under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights comes into being.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that a notice issued by the Rhodesian régime declaring a British citizen to be a prohibited immigrant is not recognised by Her Majesty's Government is valid.

I can give that assurance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects he estimates are at present in prison in Rhodesia.

We have no information about the total number of persons, whether British or otherwise, in prison in Rhodesia. The number would include those held for all kinds of criminal offences. As I told the House on 20th November, so far as we know there are approximately 65 persons held under ministerial detention orders.—[Vol. 846, c. 882–4.]

Is it not very odd that the Minister cannot even give an estimate of how many of Her Majesty's subjects, to quote an expression used earlier, are at present imprisoned in Rhodesia, many of them without trial? What efforts is the Minister making to try to get some of these people released from gaol?

It is difficult to obtain reliable information on such matters now that we do not have a representative in Salisbury and an uninformed guess or estimate seems to me to be worthless. I was asked by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) to make representations on behalf of those detained during the test of acceptability. We have done so.

Why not ask the Rhodesian Government direct?

That is precisely what we have done. We have made representations on behalf of those detained during the test of acceptability, as I was asked to do by the right hon. Gentleman.

But the Question goes far wider than that. Why not ask the Rhodesian Government how many people are in prison? After all, they are still our subjects.

We can certainly try to make further representations to ascertain the position, but we are in exactly the same situation on this matter as were the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his latest exchanges with the Rhodesian Government.

It is our intention to maintain contact with all sections of Rhodesian opinion, which of course includes the Rhodesian authorities, during the current period of reflection. But it must be left to the Government to decide if and when a statement about any such contacts would be desirable. The present is not the right time.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that on 4th December Mr. Ian Smith said at a press conference in Salisbury, Rhodesia, that there was no stalemate and that things were moving and working the whole time? May we be told exactly what is moving and what is working or whether that is just another lie from Mr. Smith? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we should not continue the present contacts while increasingly racialist legislation is being placed on the Statute Book in Rhodesia?

When the hon. Gentleman asks me what is moving, I can tell him that there have been talks between the African National Council and the Rhodesian Government, and there are various bodies in Rhodesia which are seeing whether they can devise a basis for a settlement founded on the provisional settlement of November 1971. On the question of discriminatory legislation, we have made representations to the effect that we regard this as undesirable.

Will my right hon. Friend make very clear to the Rhodesian authorities that if their present line of policies which are discriminatory towards the Africans is continued, this will completely destroy any atmosphere in which there might be fruitful negotiations in the future?

Yes, I accept that from my hon. Friend. It is worth recalling to the House that had the provisional settlement of 1971 been accepted, these things could not have happened.

Is it not clear that the Commission found that Africans did not accept the 1971 proposals? I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement that he is keeping in touch with all sections of opinion in Rhodesia, but can he say how he is maintaining contact with African opinion and whether he has been able to get any idea from them about the nature of the racialist legislation which is now passing through the Rhodesian Parliament?

During the past year or so I have seen a number of Africans from Rhodesia who have come to London; we have had other contacts in Rhodesia with some of them. It is difficult at this moment to see that there is anything of great substance happening, and that is why I cannot make a statement to the House. However, I have very much in mind the desirability of keeping in touch with African opinion in Rhodesia.

But something of substance has happened. Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the Government in Rhodesia have now conceded all the demands of the Roman Catholic Church, which has been very firm on multiracialism in regard to discriminatory legislation as applied to its missions and activities? Does my right hon. Friend not think that this shows good will and that we should build on that good will rather than keep nagging all the time at the Rhodesians?

Yes, I am aware of what my hon. Friend has just said, and it is satisfactory that there should be agreement between Mr. Smith's Government and the Roman Catholic Church. I hope that these areas of agreement can be extended in the next few months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will open talks with other European Governments to discuss new ways of combating and preventing international terrorism.

Since my right hon. Friend's talks in Rome early in September with the European Ministers, we have been in consultation at both ministerial and expert level with our partners in the European Community on how we can best co-operate in this matter. My hon. Friend will not expect me to give details of these consultations.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the kind of terrorists who struck in Munich could easily have struck in London, Paris or Amsterdam? Therefore, is there not a common European interest in combating terrorism of this kind? Will my right hon. Friend consider having discussions on the formation of some kind of European police squad to combat terrorism?

I think my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will appreciate, of course, that it would not help the cause if we were to disclose details of these matters.

Has the right hon Gentleman seen the circumstantial report in today's Financial Times that the Provisional IRA has been supplied with a consignment of arms by Arab terrorists financed by the Libyan Government? Will he investigate the report and, if it is proved accurate, make representations to the Libyan Government and cut off arms supplies from that Government?

We have as yet no clear evidence of how these weapons reached the IRA. We have asked the Soviet Government whether they will help by giving us information about how weapons apparently of Soviet origin managed to reach Ireland.

Has my right hon. Friend any information on how Russian-made rockets have recently been delivered to Northern Ireland? Can this supply be stopped, and is there any truth in the suggestion that these rockets may have come from Cyprus?

As I have said, we have no detailed evidence, or any evidence at all, about how they got there. They appear to be of Russian origin and we have asked the Soviet Government to co-operate with us in tracing how they arrived at their destination.

Has the Foreign Secretary any evidence that a Russian submarine has been active off the North Antrim coast and that there has been direct trading between the IRA and the Soviet Government?

I have read the report in the newspapers but I have no other evidence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on steps he is taking to protect the property and ensure the safety and freedom from harassment of British subjects resident in Uganda.

The safety and well-being of the British community is very much in my mind at the present time and we keep in close touch with them through the High Commission. The Uganda authorities have been reminded of their responsibility for the protection of the United Kingdom community on a number of occasions. The last was on 20th November when the Minister for Foreign Affairs confirmed that his Government accepted full responsibility for the protection of the lives and property of British nationals.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House, in so far as it is possible to assess General Amin's intentions, that there is no likelihood of any immediate deterioration in the situation in the near future? Can he also indicate what is likely to be the situation of British firms in Uganda in the future?

One can only hope that at the meeting which General Amin has with the British community on 18th December common sense and moderation will prevail. We have no information that the Ugandans intend to buy out British firms at present but, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it is very difficult to predict what General Amin will do next.

How many British residents are there in Uganda?

There are now fewer than 3,000.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ugandan Asians who are resident in my constituency tell me that some of their baggage and goods have not arrived from Uganda? Is he further aware that there have been Press reports of looting of crates, on which transit has been paid, at Entebbe airport? Is it possible for us to give any assistance to make sure that property lying at the airport is moved to this country?

The property, so far as we could achieve it, was listed by the High Commission—

Movable property.

Yes, movable property. If the hon. Gentleman will give me any information about particular cases that he may have in mind, I will certainly have them looked into.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what contingency plans the Government have for dealing with the situation if General Amin turns his attention to all United Kingdom citizens and not just Asians in Uganda?

All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have this possibility very much in mind. I do not think that any contingency plans ought to be revealed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Ugandans, expelled by General Amin, he estimates have been taken in by Canada, Australia and New Zealand, respectively, to the latest stated date.

By 1st December 4,750 Ugandan Asians had arrived in Canada, 77 in Australia and 24 in New Zealand. Canada had approved a total of 6,300 applications for immigrant visas from Ugandan Asians and Australia 477. New Zealand had approved a total of 27 applications, and a further 139 were under consideration.

In view of the interest in total reciprocity of arrangements reportedly expressed by the new Australian and New Zealand Governments, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the British Government should do more to persuade these two new Governments to take more of their fair share of British passport-holding citizens regardless of the colour of their skins?

We have said that we propose to consult Commonwealth Governments about immigration matters, and I have nothing more to add.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks he has had since 21st November with Ministers in the Australian, Canadian and New Zealand Governments about immigration rules for the United Kingdom.

I have not yet had an opportunity to talk with Ministers of the new Governments of Australia and New Zealand but am in touch with them on these matters through the normal diplomatic channels. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Trudeau.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on this side of the House there are many of us who want the subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, particularly those in Australia, Canada and New Zealand, to enjoy the right of residence and employment in the United Kingdom no less favourably than citizens from the Common Market?

I think this is the sort of question that we shall take up with the Ministers concerned in the new Governments when those Governments are appointed. I quite understand the emphasis which has been put in this House on questions of reciprocity, but we have to find out the view of the new Prime Ministers in those countries before we can make certain what we do.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman regard it as lunatic that from 1st January Commonwealth citizens, including those mentioned by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), will have very great difficulty in being admitted to this country whereas citizens of Réunion, Martinique, Guadeloupe and French Guiana will be able to have free entry to come and look for work in this country without even having a job to come to? Is not this intolerable?

The recent debate will be very much within the recollection of the House. As I say this question, apart from the treatment of Australians and New Zealanders at airports and ports of entry here, concentrates on those people in Australia and New Zealand who, for one reason or another, are refused permanent entry. That relates to one in 200 applicants. There may or may not be good reasons, but this is the kind of matter which we must take up with the two Governments concerned.

Has my right hon. Friend any reason for supposing that the Governments of those three countries would object to their citizens being given the same rights in this country as citizens of the EEC countries?

The immigration policies of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are different. I think we had better examine how far the Prime Ministers and other Ministers in these countries are ready to discuss the details of immigration policy in relation to the change of rules, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We must have discussions with these Ministers before we can make up our minds what can be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the dates of dispatch of the invitations to Commonwealth Governments for talks with Her Majesty's Government on immigration and emigration policies, and the replies received.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has recently discussed the matter with Mr. Trudeau. We are also in touch with other Commonwealth Governments interested in this matter.

Delighted as I am to hear that contact has been established, is my right hon. Friend aware that many people in Britain believe that the immigration doors of this country are still too wide open to abuse and that there is an urgent need to conclude the talks?

Yes, Sir. We shall not lose time, but the Australian Government are not yet formed and the New Zealand Government are very new.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that this would be a constructive approach not merely to the Australian and Canadian Governments but to the Indian, Pakistani and other Governments? To bring them into discussions now might prevent serious trouble later throughout the world and in our own country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue this approach.

We are holding discussions with various Common-wealth Governments, and not only the Governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The hon. Gentleman will realise how complicated a question it is. He is right to say that the conversations should be extended.

May we have an assurance that when the immigration rules are reintroduced the Commonwealth and EEC rules will be reintroduced together and not separately?

That must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he proposes to take in connection with the situation in the Middle East.

Her Majesty's Government have not proposed any new initiatives in connection with the Middle East. Their policy remains to do all they can to help bring about a settlement on the basis of Security Council resolution 242.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Anglo-French performances at the United Nations hardly help in that direction? Does he not recognise that what has happened at the United Nations has brought a great deal of rejoicing in Arab capitals because of the partiality of Her Majesty's Government in this respect? Why are the Government so selective in their criticisms? Why have they not at the United Nations criticised the Libyan Government for harbouring terrorists? Why have—

Order. That is three questions.

I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is referring to when he speaks of the "Anglo-French performances". We and our European partners voted in favour of the General Assembly resolution because, in our view, it did not alter or distort Security Council resolution No. 242, which remains the only generally accepted basis for a settlement.

Do the British Government support the American proposals for an interim settlement which would involve the withdrawal of troops along the Suez Canal?

We should welcome a resumption of efforts to bring about a resumption of talks based upon an interim arrangement so long as it was clearly linked to a final settlement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) uses the term "partiality", what he really means is that the Government at last, following the unhappy precedent of the previous Government, have returned to a greater degree of impartiality in these matters?

I think that hon. Members opposite had better settle that matter between themselves, without my intervention.

Will my right hon. Friend recognise that some people are concerned that the apparent swing in Foreign Office policy to a more anti-Israel stance should coincide with an attempt to co-ordinate our policy in the Middle East with that of the French Government?

I assure my hon. Friend that there is no swing, apparent or otherwise, to an anti-Israeli stance. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are to meet Mr. Eban this afternoon. We shall be discussing these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Helsinki conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the meeting of Foreign Ministers in Finland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of the talks at Helsinki to prepare for the conference on security and co-operation in Europe.

I reviewed developments in the preparatory talks with my NATO colleagues at our meeting in Brussels last week. The subject was also debated in this House on a Private Member's Motion on 8th December.—[Vol. 847, c. 1873–88.]

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that these preparatory talks will lead to putting on the agenda for discussion later by Ministers the question of freer movement of peoples and further contacts between East and West?

Yes, Sir. I shall put a copy of the communiqué of the NATO Alliance in the Library so that hon. Members may judge for themselves. The importance of this was emphasised very much. As for the actual wording which will go on the agenda, when it is formed, the important point is that it should be possible for this question to be raised without a veto by anyone saying that it is out of order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Britain's representative at these talks will genuinely seek a further relaxation of tension in Europe and not use them as an occasion for cold war propaganda?

That is hardly a question properly to be put to a Minister of this Government or, indeed, to any of us in this House. I suggest that it should be directed somewhere else. That is certainly not our intention. Vague declarations of intent to live together in peace are no good. We are approaching this conference with the idea of identifying areas of mutual interest to East and West and trying to do something about them in a constructive way.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that at the NATO talks at Brussels last week there was a united approach by the Alliance to the talks at Helsinki and the related talks which will come in 1973 on mutual and balanced force reductions and other matters?

Yes, Sir. That will be revealed when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members read the communique which I shall put in the Library.

Why do Her Majesty's Government believe that the question of providing continuing machinery after the conference for scrutiny of security questions can be discussed only at a late stage in the conference itself? To give reassurance that this is not simply a propaganda exercise on both sides, is it not necessary that that machinery should be established?

It can certainly be discussed. I do not think anyone has suggested that it could not be discussed at the conference at any stage if any Foreign Minister wished to raise it. The Alliance felt that it would be as well to see how we got on before committing ourselves to permanent machinery, and that it would be better to set up committees to deal with the problem, to find the substance, before finally committing ourselves to the machinery which will follow in the end.

As the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference on European security will start at Helsinki on 26th January next, can my right hon. Friend say when the present preparatory talks are likely to end?

I think that my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The conference will not start in January. The preparatory talks will go on for quite a long time.

My right hon. Friend, I take it, is referring to the mutual and balanced force reductions. I did not make myself clear. I was referring to the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference on this subject which is to start in Helsinki in January, and I should like to know when the present preparatory talks designed for another conference will come to an end.

I am sorry—I misunderstood. I cannot help my hon. Friend there. I think that the preparatory talks are likely to go on beyond that date.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest round of discussions between Great Britain, the Argentine and the Falkland Islands in Port Stanley.

Talks about communications between the Falkland Islands and Argentina were held in a friendly and constructive atmosphere in Port Stanley from 21st to 24th November. The British delegation included participants from the Falklands. Practical arrangements were made to ensure the smooth operation of the air service, mails and other communications.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he accept that the communications agreement between Britain, the Argentine and the Falkland Islands opens up new opportunities for the islanders in terms of medical facilities, educational facilities and increased trade, and will he reaffirm, for the sake of the islanders, that there will be no change in their sovereignty without their full consent?

I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's question. We believe that the arrangements made will be a help to the islanders. At the same time, I wish to make clear that there was no discussion of any change of sovereignty. Her Majesty's Government's policy remains that there can be no transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Why do not the Government extend the same courtesy to the British people and allow them to decide, in respect of the Common Market, whether they wish to have any transfer of sovereignty?

First, there is no transfer of sovereignty involved. Secondly, the two parties made their position about the Common Market quite clear at the last General Election.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations the treatment of the Australian aborigines.

We have no evidence that there is a consistent pattern of violations of human rights which would justify action in the United Nations.

Does the Foreign Office accept as true the figures given in the documents following the recent meeting which some of us had with Bobbi Sykes and her colleagues that the infant mortality rate among the Australian aborigines is the highest in the world? If that is accepted, is there not some reason for having discussions with the incoming Australian Government about it?

We recognise that infant mortality is high but that must be a domestic matter and one in which we should not interfere. It should be recognised that nomadic peoples, perhaps like some Highland peoples, encounter special problems.

Is it not a case that the first Australia aborigine to have done so recently received a knighthood from the Queen—just in time? Does not that reveal a certain attitude to the problem of a aborigines on the part of the Australian Government? I agree, however, with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that this is a serious question which should be discussed between Commonwealth Prime Ministers rather than taken by one Commonwealth Government to the United Nations.

This must be a matter for the Australian Government. The new Labour Government, I understand, is pledged by statements made by Mr. Whitlam earlier this year and during the recent election campaign to introduce a system of land tenure, among other things, for aborigines in their traditional areas, that system to carry with it full mineral rights. That will help them considerably. The question of legislation or alteration of the aboriginal people's position in Australia and the point about infant mortality must remain matters for the Australian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government at the United Nations towards resolutions and statements concerned with Portugal and her overseas territories.

The test we apply to draft resolutions tabled at the United Nations is whether the resolution in question would be likely to promote peaceful progress towards self-determination and an end to armed confrontation. Our statements reflect this policy.

Does the Minister agree that the increased evidence that when the chips are down we side with the oppressive régimes of southern Africa is leading to a dangerous polarisation in that part of the continent and is playing into the hands of those Communist extremists who are determined to extract every ounce of opportunity from the situation thus presented?

I do not believe that it would lead to peaceful progress to self-determination or an end to confrontation if we were to take sides in support of guerrilla movements.

Is it not unfortunately typical of the hyprocrisy that often surrounds these matters that Uganda should have been amongst those to condemn the Portuguese for so-called racialist oppression, and is it not a fact that no Asian or anyone, whatever the colour of his skin, has been threatened with being thrown out of Portuguese East Africa? Is it not also true that whatever else may be said about the Portuguese, they are dedicated multi-racialists?

I cannot deny the facts that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

It is a question not of siding with guerrilla movements but rather of taking action in the United Nations by a proper initiative to prevent the guerrilla movements from developing the situation into disastrous proportions, not only in Portugal but throughout central Africa.

As I am sure the right hon. Member is aware, the Portuguese Government has stated that it is giving greater autonomy to its dependent territories; and before we intervene in the affairs of another country, which would be questionable under the United Nations Charter, we had better see how its new policies work out.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom delegate at the United Nations General Assembly, on 14th November, voted against a resolution aimed at persuading Portugal to free her African colonies.

We voted against the General Assembly resolution because we did not think that it would help to peaceful progress towards self-determination.

Does the Minister recognise that that vote will be interpreted as support for one of the most repressive colonial régimes in Africa? If the Government are not prepared to condemn the régime, they will reap the whirlwind in Africa and elsewhere. Will not the Minister say that he condemns all colonial repression—a practice that we have sought to discard in some measure?

I am sure the hon. Member will be the first to realise that if we were to condemn all régimes on ideological grounds we should have a long list of régimes to condemn in many continents. In these matters we must be guided by the principles of the Charter and our own long-established policy.

Are there not more black than white voters in Angola and more black than white troops in Mozambique? In those circumstances, is it not nonsense to talk about a repressive régime holding down the people?

Everyone who has studied the question is well aware of the multi-racial policies pursued by the Portuguese Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence is available to Her Majesty's Government as a result of discussions in the United Nations that any national government is deliberately encouraging trade in heroin or the growth of unwarranted acreages of crops which could only be used for illegal purposes.

None, Sir.

In view of that answer, and now that China is a member of the United Nations, will my hon. Friend invite the Chinese Government to sign the 1961 convention and thus help to combat the illicit world trade in drugs?

Trade in drugs has been illegal in China since 1950 but I certainly join with my hon. Friend in hoping that now that China is a member of the United Nations it will see its way clear to signing the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much compensation has now been paid by the Indonesian Government to compensate British firms and individuals for their assets seized in Indonesia.

All the major British claims for repossession have been settled. We await the Indonesian proposals for settlement of the compensation claims to which I referred in the answer I gave my hon. Friend on 23rd October. The terms of settlement are of course a matter for the Indonesian Government and the claimants.—[Vol. 843, c. 778.]

Is it not rather disturbing that 10 years after the seizure of assets in Indonesia no compensation appears to have been paid to the plantation companies whose assets were seized? Is this not also disturbing as Britain's aid to Indonesia has increased and is increasing?

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Indonesian Government invite, claims from British companies and indicated its willingness to negotiate with the firms concerned. It would be inappropriate for the British Government to attempt to intervene, and our object is to secure the early opening of negotiations. I do not believe that a reduction in the level of our aid to Indonesia would help to secure an early settlement of outstanding claims for compensation there.

How can the Minister say that terms of compensation are a matter between the claimants and the Government of Indonesia when it is an established principle of international law that the terms of compensation must be prompt, adequate and effective—something which it is the business of the British Government to ensure?

The details of negotiations between the firms and the Indonesian Government are matters for the firms themselves. In this case the Indonesian Government's first priority was the settling of claims for repossession. Claims for compensation were lodged three years or more ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained from voting on the resolution of the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly which concerned the status of women.

We abstained on the proposal to designate 1975 as International Women's Year because we had doubts both about its timing and about the desirability of singling out women for this kind of special attention. All the same, in view of our general sympathy with the objectives of the year we shall vote for the proposal in plenary session.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Government's attitude on the matter has been reactionary and timid, in sharp contrast to that of most countries at the United Nations, which were progressive and brave on the matter? His statement today has shown how totally illogical and uncertain the Government's mind is on the question. If they support the declaration on discrimination against women passed at the General Assembly in 1967, how can they fail to support the resolution, which deals with the same matter?

On the general question, it has been our view that if discrimination against women is to be eliminated we must stop singling out women for special treatment. To turn to the particular, we doubt whether international years are an effective method of promoting human rights. The choice of 1975 is a little unwise, because the Status of Women Commission will not complete its examination of the implementation of the declaration on discrimination against women until 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Under-Secretary's visit to Fiji.

During my visit to Fiji I had discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of topics of mutual interest. I accompanied the Deputy-Prime Minister on the helicopter tour of the areas worst hit by Hurricane Bebe. I also inspected the site of the new Lautoka hospital, at present the largest construction project in Fiji's development plan, and one to which Her Majesty's Government are making a major contribution. Our relations with Fiji remain excellent.

Can my hon. Friend say to what extent Fiji has recovered from the hurricane damage? Was he able to form a view about the aspirations of the South Pacific recently expressed at the South Pacific Forum?

The latter subject was not discussed in any detail between the Prime Minister and me. As the House was told on 6th November, Her Majesty's Government made an immediate cash contribution of about £12,500 to the Fiji Prime Minister's hurricane relief fund. We are hopeful that the damage will not prove as serious as was first feared.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give the latest figures of Government aid to Bangladesh.

I cannot at present add to the replies I gave to the hon. Member's similar Questions on 23rd October and 20th November.—[Vol. 843, c. 167; Vol. 846, c. 258–9.]

Could it be tactfully and privately conveyed to the Bangladesh authorities that some of us who have been arguing most strenuously for aid to Bangladesh are equally perturbed about the legal situation that has developed there?

There is a great deal of anxiety about the matter. I think that the authorities in Bangladesh are in no doubt what views are held in this country about what happens there.

In particular, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that at present a large number not of soldiers but of civilians who served the Government of their day—Bangalee civilians—are on trial or have been convicted, and that we in this country find it very abhorrent that someone who claims our aid should at the same time be guilty of the most appalling atrocities to human beings?

I am sure that notice will be taken of my hon. Friend's feeling.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement clarifying the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the rôle of official aid in fulfilling the 1 per cent. of gross national product overseas aid target.

I have frequently expressed the Government's view that official development assistance should form a substantial part of the total flow of public and private resources to developing countries.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have steadfastly refused to accept the target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP for official aid, and that it is increasingly questionable whether private investment, on which the Government place considerable em- phasis as a form of aid, can be regarded as development assistance at all, because what makes private investment tick is a handsome and certain return on the investment rather than the urgent priorities of developing countries? When shall we accept the 0·7 per cent. target?

The hon. Gentleman has so phrased his Question that he himself accepts that private investment plays a part in the overseas aid target of 1 per cent. of GNP. But that is the target to which we have subscribed. We have never subscribed to an official target. We believe that attempts to subscribe to an official target without attaching a date are so meaningless as to be without value.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there was a good point in the Pearson Report saying that not only should there be a 1 per cent. overall target but that there was a real need for a 0·7 per cent. target for official aid to provide the infrastructure without which the commercial aid has no purpose?

That is why we have always taken the view I expressed in my original answer that official development assistance should provide a substantial part. But we have never committed ourselves to a target of 0·7 per cent. or any other within the 1 per cent. target.

As we already knew that the Government had not committed themselves to a 0·7 per cent. target, will the right hon. Gentleman say why not? If he is worried about our committing ourselves to such a target without putting a date to it, why not do so and put a date to it?

I want to commit myself to targets only when I am sure of reaching them. I see no point in committing myself to that target, which I do not believe we should reach. That is why we have not done it.

In view of our difficulty in assessing precisely what component parts make up the Lester Pearson 1 per cent. and of how we compare with other countries, may I ask what action the right hon. Gentleman is taking to implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on reaching agreement with all countries on what should constitute the comparable standard of the amount of aid being given?

These matters are discussed in the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD. There is general agreement there about what should or should not count towards the 1 per cent. target.

Is the right hon. Gentleman determined to be completely adamant about the matter? Is he happy, and is his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister happy, to find that apart from the United States, where the problem is that Congress will not vote the money for an increase in official aid, the United Kingdom is now the odd man out among all developed countries, including those of the European Economic Community and those of the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD?

No, Sir. No major donor has undertaken with a date attached—which is all that would make it meaningful—the achievement of a 0·7 per cent. target. I question the right hon. Lady's wisdom in pressing the matter very hard in view of the performance of her own Government a few years ago.

For the sake of the record, will the right hon. Gentleman correct his statement? There are at least two member countries of the Development Assistance Committee which not only have accepted the 0·7 per cent. official aid target but have undertaken to reach it by 1975 or earlier.

I said that there were no major donors which had accepted the 0·7 per cent. target and attached a date to it. I stand by that statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for further African resettlement schemes in Kenya and for the purchase of the remaining small European-owned mixed farms.

I expect to have talks with Kenya Ministers in the first half of next year about future aid for their development programme. I am sure that the land transfer programme will form an important part of those discussions. I am meanwhile taking steps to avoid any gap in the land transfer programme.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to take note of the fact that the transfer of land outside the official scheme has almost ceased? Will he try to ascertain the number of small British mixed farmers who might wish to take advantage of any further resettlement scheme which my right hon. Friend may agree with the Kenya Government?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes, I will." As for the first part of his question, he will understand that I always take note of his wise words.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether consideration can now be given to the relief of the burden of debt incurred by Commonwealth countries in respect of past British loans; and whether he will initiate talks on the subject with other donor countries.

Debt relief must be considered against the economic situation of each developing country and preferably by donor countries acting together. We shall continue to discuss it with our Community partners, in aid consortia and in other groups. We recently proposed that Community members should help countries which face the greatest problems of indebtedness and suggested a number of measures, including the waiver of interest due on past aid loans.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there was no immediate response to the Prime Minister's appeal at the recent European summit conference for co-ordinated action on this matter, but that was swiftly followed by unilateral action by President Pompidou who announced the writing-off of debts owed by French-sneaking African developing countries. Does he not think that this French initiative underlines the need for co-ordinated action and, if not, why cannot unilateral action be taken by Her Maiesty's Government?

My hon. Friend will be aware that President Pompidou is not in the lead since we nave already cancelled a loan of great value connected with compensation and pensions commutation to former Colonial Service officers. What President Pompidou was doing related to entirely different circumstances from anything we might do. It must be remembered that in the ex-French colonies France is the only major creditor. This is not the case with countries like India, Pakistan or Ghana where we favour multilateral action and are trying to achieve it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the French Government about the co-ordination of aid programmes to African countries, including Uganda.

We have frequent contacts with the French Government on matters of aid policy, including aid to African countries.

Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that France is prepared substantially to increase aid to Uganda to curry favour with General Amin? Will he tell the French Government that that sort of behaviour would be bitterly resented in this country?

I have seen the reports and was as disquieted as my hon. Friend. However, I have made inquiries and I find that reports were grossly exaggerated. All that was being discussed was a small programme of technical assistance and there is no question of the French Government being willing, as I think the article said, to fill in the gaps left by the British.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that even a minor loan by France to Uganda, at this precise moment when, for very good reasons we have discontinued aid to Uganda, indicates the need to establish a rather better method of co-ordination and communication if we are to co-operate, as the right hon. Gentleman no doubt hopes we shall, as members of the EEC on matters relating to developing countries? Does not the present situation leave something to be desired?

No, I think that cooperation has been quite close, and we have been told exactly what the French have in mind. This technical assistance, small as it is, is a matter for the French, not for the British Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he now intends to make to the Governments of member countries concerning methods of election to European Community institutions; and if he will make a statement.

Under Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome, it is for the Parliament itself in the first instance to draw up proposals for direct elections to the European Parliament. Before I take a view, I should like to have the benefit of advice from Members of the House when they have participated in the Parliament.

Would the Minister agree with the views of Chancellor Willy Brandt as reported in the Press today that it is desirable that this country should participate to the full in the European Parliament and that for any part of this Parliament not to do so would retard the democratisation of Europe?

We very much hope that we shall play our full part in the European Parliament and that we shall take our place in the deliberations of that Assembly. As for the legal situation on the point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I must point out that Article 138 of the EEC Treaty and Article 139 of the Act of Accession provide that delegates should be designated by Parliaments and not by Governments of member States.

Whatever the merits of methods of election to a European Parliament, is not the reality of the situation that it would be far better for the Government in their relations with Europe to concentrate on having a meeting of a group of sovereign nations, each of which might discuss these problems, instead of running away with so-called democratic ideas which merely fudge the issue? Will not progress which is likely to be made in Europe be based on the combination of sovereign Governments and not on the election of a European Parliament?

We believe that the European Parliament has a very important role to play—

When?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear on 23rd October, we think it right that action on this front should be taken after enlargement of the Community.

If the official Opposition are not prepared to accept their responsibilities and send a delegation to the European Parliament, may the Liberals be invited to make up the number?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.