asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will now take steps to seek to arrange frequent consultation between the EEC and member nations of the Commonwealth.

It is for the independent Commonwealth Governments to decide for themselves on the degree of consultation they wish to have with the European Communities. I am glad to say that many of these Governments have already accredited their representatives to the European Communities and others are in the process of doing so.

Does not the equivocation of that answer demonstrate yet again that in the eyes of this Government the Commonwealth is a very poor second to the EEC? One concedes that the present disintegration of the Commonwealth is not entirely the fault of this Government, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that disintegration is now a matter of deep concern to many people within the House and outside? Does he not agree that this country has a special responsibility to try to restore the bonds which formerly linked this Commonwealth?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with this point on 21st March, very fully and well, in answer to the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand). There is no question of regarding the Commonwealth as in second degree to the Community. The truth, however, is that in these matters Commonwealth countries have an independent position to demonstrate to the Community, and naturally they do so with the full understanding and support of Her Majesty's Government.

Would not one of the best ways to help the developing Commonwealth be for the Common Market to come out absolutely clearly and say that it will accept the 1·4 million tons of Commonwealth sugar from the developing countries at the right price, rather than just saying that it will "have it at heart" to do so?

As my hon. Friend knows, the countries principally concerned in the Commonwealth met here at the end of last month. I think that they went away from that meeting with a real sense of satisfaction that their interests were both understood and considered—not just sympathetically but effectively—here and in the Community.

If the Commonwealth as a whole decides that it would like to make a common approach to the EEC, whether on the subject of sugar or anything else, may we have an assurance that such a co-ordinated move will have the support of Her Majesty's Government?

Clearly, it would have to be seen in what fields the Commonwealth as a whole—which, after all, includes this country—was involved in making a direct approach to the Community. This country is now a member of the Community. There are considerable areas for movement by groups of Commonwealth countries—particularly in sugar producing— to take direct action with the Community, and they are, as they know, strongly supported and helped by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement outlining the representations he has made to the illegal régime in Rhodesia on recent developments in that country.

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

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

As the House knows, I made representations to the Rhodesian authorities following the detention of Mr. Niesewand and leading African National Council members. I have also taken up with Mr. Smith the matter of the recent trial of Mr. Niesewand.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the Government will follow up last Friday's message of protest to Ian Smith about the trial of Peter Niesewand? Will he take this opportunity of making it absolutely clear that no negotiations will take place with the illegal régime unless the Africans are directly represented, and, further, that any talk of independence means that political detainees will have to be released first?

It is quite clear that there must be a basic agreement between responsible Africans and the Rhodesian administration before any proposals can be seriously considered. As for the trial of Mr. Niesewand, what all of us on both sides of the House and in the country as a whole deplore is the fact that the Rhodesian authorities held these entire proceedings in camera and have allowed no details of the charges to be known, so that no one is in a position to judge either the charges or the penalties. That is the real offence that has been committed, which we thoroughly deplore.

The demerits of the Niesewand case aside, can my right hon. Friend say what progress or otherwise has been made in the matter of adherence to sanctions, and why this country should put up with the fact that an increasing number of our international colleagues— Japan, West Germany, Italy, France and several other members of the European Economic Community—are now trading freely with Rhodesia, whereas British goods are, evidently, wholly debarred?

As my hon. Friend says, we are maintaining sanctions. Many other countries are not. We are representing each case that comes to our notice where, in our opinion, there is conclusive evidence that sanctions have been broken. We must continue to do that and hope that the performance of other countries will improve.

Regarding the Niesewand trial, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his prompt and condemnatory statement has gained the overwhelming support of all hon. Members, and that he is to be congratulated? Will he see to it that any further indulgences of this sort of vulgarity receive the same treatment from him, as it must be quite clear to him that the Smith régime intends to trample on human rights and offend all canons of freedom, justice and democracy? Our nation has a responsibility to people of all colours and creeds in Rhodesia. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he intends at all times, as he has done recently, to be on their side?

A Bill of Rights must be included in any future settlement. It was in the provisional proposals of 1971. Certainly there must be a Bill of Rights. But, returning to what I said earlier, the fact that the entire proceedings of the Niesewand trial were in secret has created the worst possible impression.

Does not my right hon. Friend concede that Rhodesia is in a state of war, being invaded by terrorists trained in Russia and China who are slaughtering black and white men, women and children in Rhodesia? In these circumstances is it not reasonable to expect stringent security regulations in Rhodesia, of the kind which would obtain in any other country?

I agree with my hon. Friend that there is considerable pressure on Rhodesia and that terrorists are operating. That is true. But when charges are brought in court they should be made public, as, for example, they are in Northern Ireland now. That is not so in Rhodesia at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the operation of sanctions against the illegal régime in Rhodesia concerning asbestos exports from that country.

No, Sir.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the latest figures released by the United Nations show a discrepancy of 96,000 tons in the amount of asbestos that South Africa claims to have exported and the amount which other countries are shown as importing from her? Bearing in mind that Rhodesia is believed to be exporting over 100,000 tons of asbestos to and through South Africa annually, and the fact that we are the second largest importers of South African asbestos, will the Foreign Secretary order an inquiry into the question whether we are inadvertently importing Rhodesian asbestos? Will he make strong representations to the United States, which now does so openly and flagrantly?

On the point about the United States, the hon. Member knows that we have made representations but the United States administration says that it is powerless to deal with the matter. As for British importation of asbestos, if the hon. Member has evidence which leads him to think that this country is importing asbestos against sanctions I hope he will let me have it.

Does my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary mean, in further reference to my earlier question, that the United States administration now disclaims any statutory responsibility for preventing the entry of such raw substances as chrome direct from Rhodesia? If that is the case the United States is virtually contracting out of its obligations in the United Nations.

It is one of the facts of life that the United States does contract out in respect of this particular strategic material, which it says it would otherwise have to obtain from the Soviet Union.

Is not the most inflammatory thing to have hap- pened in Rhodesia since UDI the detention of Mr. Niesewand? Will the Foreign Secretary see that the absestos stays in Rhodesia, for political purposes?

We covered that question a few moments ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further information he has received from the British High Commission in Dacca about the condition of the Biharis in Bangladesh.

Reports this month from the British High Commission at Dacca indicate that the present position of the Biharis is generally better than it was 12 months ago. All Biharis now have shelter and daily food. Although most of them are still without work, materially their position is no worse than that of most Bangalees.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he recognise that in the last month both The Times and The Guardian have carried reports of the plight of the Biharis which do not altogether confirm the tone of that reply and, in particular, point to the present hopelessness of the Biharis' position? Is there not a serious danger that the Biharis will become permanent refugees unless urgent action is taken not only by Bangladesh but by Pakistan?

Yes, indeed. We are most anxious that there should be a quick solution to this terrible human problem. My hon. Friend will know that arrangements are being made through the Red Cross for India and Bangladesh to release certain categories of civilians and for Pakistan to permit certain Bangalees in Pakistan to return to Bangladesh. These arrangements are welcome. It is regrettable that they are not proceeding more quickly. We understand that the Red Cross is continuing its discussions with the countries concerned.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the condition of the Biharis in Bangladesh may be better than it was a year ago, it could hardly then have been worse, and that many of these people had positions of responsibility and influence within Bengali society? Will he consult the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on what should be done to concert action to ameliorate their conditions, particularly as some Biharis have escaped to Thailand, Nepal and Burma?

I take note of my hon. Friend's comments. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has recently visited Bangladesh, India and Pakistan and is considering whether he can constructively help in this problem.

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

The United Kingdom's relations with Malawi continue to be close and friendly.

Will my right hon. Friend make personal representations to President Banda to ask him to use his considerable influence to end the vicious religious persecutions of certain Christians in Malawi who, because of their faith, will not and cannot subscribe to or join the Malawi Congress Party?

The matters to which my hon. Friend refers are matters internal to Malawi. I should have to consider very carefully before I made any representations in this respect. As far as I know, no British subjects are involved in the matters to which my hon. Friend refers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will instruct the British representatives at the United Nations to raise at the Human Rights Commission the continued failure of the Soviet authorities to permit Jewish persons to leave freely for Israel in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

During the meeting of the Commission which ended on 6th April our representative, Sir Keith Unwin, spoke on two occasions in support of the right of individuals to leave their country and to return to it. He also said in particular that these rights were

"one of the basic factors for promoting international understanding and tolerance".

I appreciate greatly both the Minister's statement and his approach to this problem. However, does not he agree that the current show trials of Jewish people in outlying areas of the Soviet Union, together with the continued refusal of the Soviet authorities to release many scientists and others, is wholly abhorrent and uncivilised? Will he continue to use his best endeavours to draw to the attention of the Soviet authorities on appropriate occasions the very strong and humanitarian feelings of this House regarding the continuing persecution of Jewish people in the Soviet Union?

The general principle I have stated applies to every particular case, and very particularly to the Jews in the Soviet Union. Sir Keith Unwin's statement should be read as being full support for that case. We are watching with close interest what appears to be an improving climate in the Soviet Union towards the granting of exit visas.

Would my right hon. Friend and the House care to note that hon. Members on both sides of the House are taking such steps as lie in their power to draw to the attention of the individuals to whom the Question refers —and, indirectly, to the authorities in Russia—the deep concern of all hon. Members at this thoroughly unacceptable situation?

I think that the Soviet authorities are well aware of the views held in all parts of this House on the matter.

Will the right to return to the country referred to in the Question include the right of Palestinians to return to Palestine, according to the United Nations resolution? Was this the same session of the Human Rights Commission which, by 18 votes to two, condemned Israel for war crimes against the Palestinians?

I understand that the Israeli authorities have allowed a certain number of family reunions to take place since 1967. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a scheme under which a large number of Arab visitors may enter Israel for temporary visits. We have frequently represented to the Israeli authorities that the more they can extend these arrangements to allow Palestinians to return to their homes the greater the contribution they will be making to a final settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the efforts being made in United Kingdom embassies and high commissions to promote sales of British aerospace equipment; and what steps are taken to refute allegations made by foreign diplomatic representatives which are aimed at damaging British interests.

The staffs of British embassies and high commissions do their best to promote the sales of British aerospace equipment. By the same token they do their best to counter any adverse publicity about British products. In all this, of course, they co-operate closely with the Department of Trade and Industry and the companies concerned.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Did he see a recent article in the Daily Express by Chapman Pincher which indicated that a degree of commercial warfare was being undertaken by certain of our overseas competitors, seeking to prevent the sale of British aerospace equipment in a number of countries? Will my right hon. Friend take a suitable opportunity to discuss this with the American authorities, which are named in the article, because if what is alleged in the article is in any way true it must surely lead to a souring of Anglo-American relations?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that from long experience in these matters I know that the line between boosting one's own aerospace equipment and knocking that of others is rather fine.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, while in recent years there has been considerable improvement in the commercial outlook in our embassies, we must not let up on it? The commercial warfare which has been mentioned is a true and serious matter. We must have people who understand the idiom of business to make certain that we get a fair crack of the whip.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think he will find that there has been a marked improvement in the contribution that the Foreign Service has made to this matter over recent years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the report of the United Nations Security Council special mission established under Resolution 326 (1973); and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. The report has reached me.

In view of the loyalty which Zambia has shown to our policy of sanctions, is the Foreign Secretary able to say yet what steps the Government intend to take in view of the report's conclusion that only adequate and timely assistance will make it possible for the Zambian economy to continue developing in a normal fashion? Can he yet add to the announcement made last month of £1 million aid for road transport?

I cannot add to that as yet, but my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has been in Zambia and we are considering development schemes. It must be remembered that most other countries engaged in this matter of trying to help Zambia are starting from scratch. We do not, of course. In addition to the £1 million for road transport, which was given because the Zambians said this was a matter of particular concern, we provide £7 million a year for technical development and we are subscribing in a big way to the International Bank. I will keep the hon. Member informed of any projects, however.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to appear before the Committee of 24 at the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the United Nations Committee of 24 to visit the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister not accept that an early visit to this committee would give him an opportunity to explain to a wide cross-section of world public opinion how the British Government reconcile their stated commitment to human rights and opposition to colonial oppression with their anxiety this year to demonstrate in every way possible their unquestioning friendship with Portugal?

I would have thought that this country had a record second to none in supporting the principle of self-determination. The Committee of 24 normally meets at the United Nations headquarters in New York. We in the Government are proud of our old alliance with Portugal, which has made a very great contribution over six centuries to the interests of this country, as perhaps to theirs, and we stand by it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters are to be discussed at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers which he will be attending.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the agenda for the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

In accordance with the arrangements announced on 13th March by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, an estimate was placed in the Vote Office setting out the subject headings likely to come up for discussion in April.—[Vol. 852, c. 1115– 25.] The next such estimate will be lodged in the Vote Office towards the end of April.

At the Foreign Affairs Council of Ministers meetings will Britain be putting forward for discussion the question of the Middle East? Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is one area where the Common Market should be able to speak with one voice if it is to be taken seriously? Will my right hon. Friend say what is the view of the Common Market collectively on the Middle East? Does it agree on it, or does it disagree? If it disagrees, what are the differences of opinion?

I have nothing new to say on the subject of the Community's views on the Middle East at this stage, although this, like other matters, is perfectly able to be raised at the quarterly meetings on political problems attended by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Turning to a more domestic matter, have the Government considered putting on the agenda the subject of how best to deal with surplus commodities that may mount up in individual countries of the EEC? For example, would they consider putting on the agenda the possibility of distributing the butter that has mounted up at reduced prices to the old-age pensioners of the EEC countries?

I have no doubt that that issue, as indeed other similar issues, could well be discussed at the Council of Ministers' additional meeting to which I have referred, thus bringing together the Ministers of Agriculture. I am not able to say at this stage whether or not that will form part of the discussion next week.

As we are back on butter again, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is much more sensible to send this commodity to Moscow, where it can be eaten by humans, than for it to be disposed of as was the last butter mountain by being fed back to cows, which is not a sensible thing to do?

Most hon. Members would agree that this is a slippery subject, but for my part the real anxiety is to try to ensure that excessive stocks are not accumulated through the operation of the policy.

If the Community is to develop a political identity would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that it might discuss the question of French nuclear testing and the fact that only one member of the Community is a non-signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and also of the Partial Test Ban Treaty, namely, France?

It is, generally speaking, the normal procedure that the agenda for the meeting to which I have referred dealing with political matters is subject to previous agreement between the various Governments concerned, and, of course, it would prove necessary to have the agreement of all the Governments in order to put such a matter on the agenda.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to seek to make an official visit to Cairo.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans to visit the Middle East.

Having regard to recent events, would it not be advantageous for the Foreign Secretary to indicate to President Sadat that it would be infinitely more desirable for him to stop making warlike noises and to stop giving aid and comfort to terrorists and, instead, to agree to get round a table to talk peace with the Israelis?

We believe that a just and lasting peace is very desirable in the area. The basis on which it is most likely to be achieved is that of Security Council Resolution No. 242, which the Government sponsored.

Will my right hon. Friend, when he has the opportunity, express to President Sadat our appreciation of the fact that there was a positive res- ponse by his Government to Ambassador Jarring's questionnaire at a time when there was a completely negative response by Israel? Will he also continue to put as much pressure as possible on the United States? Surely the way to get peace is not to supply a great number of Phantoms to Israel and thus perpetuate the great imbalance of power that already exists in the Middle East?

All those considerations will no doubt be borne in mind. The important thing is that the countries which are involved in the dispute should find a way of resolving it. The best way in which they can do that is by Resolution No. 242.

When the right hon. Gentleman is dealing with Middle East matters, will he convey to the Israeli Government, with which many of us have had the most friendly relations in the past, that their international standing has depreciated as a result of the savagery recently carried out in the Lebanon?

The incidents which have taken place underline the importance of reaching a solution. This House has repeatedly deplored acts of violence, from whatever quarter they come. Such acts merely postpone the possibility of reaching a peaceful solution.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Egyptian Government by one means or another the fact that the United Nations has not proved to be a very effective forum for a coming together of Egypt and Israel in terms of real negotiations? Will he point out that there would be no loss of face or prestige for the UAR or for the Arab Federation if direct talks were to take place eventually between the two countries?

Ultimately, direct negotiations will have to take place between the parties. We are in favour of such negotiations. However, if they are to be successful there must be a negotiating procedure which has the agreement of both sides. At present direct negotiations do not have that support.

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

I have nothing to add to my answer to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davies) earlier today.

If the right hon. Gentleman were to undertake such a visit, would it not give him the opportunity to urge the need for a full, independent and international inquiry into the shooting down of a Libyan civilian airliner over the Sinai desert on 21st February, with the loss of 106 lives? Would it not also give him the opportunity to point out that the events of the last few days are no answer to the problems of the area and can only further increase bitterness and resentment? Does not he agree that the root of the problem will remain that of the annexation and colonialisation by Israel of territory which did not belong to it?

That is a hypothetical question. I hope that I shall be able to visit Israel at a suitable time. We supported the resolution calling for an inquiry into the shooting down of the Libyan airliner and we are glad that it is now under way.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that what was said by the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) contained no condemnation of the terrorist outrages in Cyprus a few days ago? Would he not welcome condemnation of that kind of terrorism as well? Will he also bear in mind that the best way to make sure that no further incursions into the Lebanon take place is to remove the facilities made available there for the training of terrorists, just as King Hussein has removed such facilities from Jordan? In relation to the Libyan air disaster, is my right hon. Friend aware that the International Civil Aviation Organisation now has a team visiting the Middle East, including Israel, which is being given every possible facility for its inquiry?

The shooting down of the airliner, the massacre in Khartoum, the terrorist activities in Nicosia and the act of violence in Beirut are all acts of violence which we deplore and which most certainly do not contribute to a peaceful solution in the area.

I entirely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but is he aware that those who have been assassinated by the Israelis have included some terrorists and some political organisers and propagandists but have mostly been civilians who were not even politically active? Is he further aware that since the assassinations of terrorists and political organisers in Frankfurt, Beirut and Rome there is a widespread feeling that Israeli authorities are about to turn their attention to London? Will he, therefore, make representations to the Israeli Government that, whatever the provocation, we shall regard as an outrage the same kind of tactics in London as we have seen in other parts of the world?

If the hon. Gentleman has any reason to believe that the Israeli Government are going to act in the way he has described in London, I hope that he will provide the information to Her Majesty's Government. We shall then take steps to ensure that it does not take place.

Bearing in mind that the dangers of the situation are probably going to escalate in future, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has indicated, will the right hon. Gentleman consider proposing that Dr. Jarring should make a fresh visit to the area, visiting not only Cairo but Tel Aviv?

We will bear, and have borne, that suggestion in mind. But, as I have said, we believe that the basis on which the countries concerned should continue to work is that which has been provided by Security Council Resolution No. 242.

Will Her Majesty's Government make it clear to the Israeli Government that uncommitted nations in the free world do not welcome policies of massive reprisal or overkill, but look to Israel to remove the source of those grievances which lie at the root of the terrorism?

I am sure that the Israeli Government will take note of the views which have been expressed both in the news media and in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government's representative abstained on the recent vote at the Security Council on the question on United States sovereignty over the Panama Canal.

Her Majesty's Government take the view that this is essentially a bilateral issue between Panama and the USA. We considered that it would not help towards the success of further bilateral negotiations for the Security Council to pass a resolution which was unacceptable to one of the parties concerned.

Bearing in mind that the canal is an important international seaway, I do not understand how the Government can make sovereignty a bilateral issue. If the American Government were to relinquish their sovereignty over the canal, would the Government favour the canal zone being brought under international rather than national control?

That is a hypothetical question. We attach great importance to the canal. There are about 14,000 transits of the canal in a year, and British shipping constitutes a significant proportion. We are, therefore, interested that the canal should function efficiently and economically without interference to international shipping. We would be glad to accept any régime for the canal which was agreed by the two parties concerned.

Bearing in mind Britain's unhappy experience of trying to prolong sovereignty over the Suez Canal long after it was unacceptable to international opinion, does the Minister realise that it is not an act of friendship to the United States to encourage it to maintain sovereignty over this area when that can no longer be justified in the modern world?

I think that the present situation in the Suez Canal might cast doubt on the historical analogy which the hon. Gentleman has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that since the declaration of martial law in Turkey thousands of people have been arrested, including the leadership of the Turkish Labour Party; and if he will support protests being made in the Council of Europe at the violation by the Turkish Government of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I am aware that people have been arrested since the declaration of martial law in parts of Turkey. I am also aware that concern has been expressed by some members of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. This is, however, a matter for the Assembly itself.

But what is the attitude of Her Majesty's Government? Have the Government no attitude on the acts of military dictatorships? Is it impossible for the Government to express any opinion, one way or another? What is the Government's position?

We should recognise that Turkey is at present passing through a very difficult phase. The Turkish authorities have had to deal with a serious terrorist problem. Untimely intervention by any foreign country might encourage those elements dedicated to the destruction of democratic rights in Turkey.

Is it not a lot of nonsense to suggest that the Turkish Labour Party is dedicated to undermining democracy in Turkey? In fact, the Turkish Labour Party wants to see democracy in Turkey. That is the very opposite to what the hon. Gentleman has said. If the Government can have an attitude towards the Greek colonels which is supported by the Opposition, surely the Government should have an attitude about the present lack of democracy in Turkey?

I recognise the concern which has been expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. It must be accepted that violent events have taken place in the past few years in Turkey, including the murder of British and Canadian technicians a year ago. Those events are evidence of the scant regard for life which has been shown by some who oppose the present Turkish Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further efforts have now been made to secure the trilateral settlement between India, Bangladesh and Pakistan which will enable the speedy return of prisoners of war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any requests from the Governments of India. Pakistan or Bangladesh to assist in negotiations regarding the recognition of Bangladesh by Pakistan and the return of the prisoners of war held in India.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests he has received asking him to mediate between India and Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Her Majesty's Government are anxious to see an early political settlement in the sub-continent that will include the repatriation of the prisoners. Our views on this are known to the three countries concerned. We have said that we are ready to help if, together, they could let us know what rôle we might play. But for the moment they wish to work for a settlement without outside involvement. I believe that this holds the best prospect of success.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that now that Bangladesh is recognised by so many countries, including our own, it would be wrong for India not to make a unilateral settlement about the situation of the prisoners of war? The only thing that is holding up a settlement is the recognition by Pakistan of the sovereignty of Bangladesh. Should not the rôle of Her Majesty's Government be to try to help Pakistan to reach an agreement recognising the sovereignty of Bangladesh?

I do not think that that is the only consideration in a very complex situation. The important thing arising from the hon. Gentleman's question is that, at Simla, India and Pakistan agreed to discuss further the repatriation of prisoners of war and civilian internees. We welcome that and the progress which has been made under the Simla agreement.

Will the British Government make representations to the Government in India and suggest, following the visit of Mr. Haksar to Dacca and Dr. Kamal Hussain, the new Foreign Minister of Bangladesh, to New Delhi, that Britain looks to India to break the logjam and release the prisoners of war now held in their camps so that other benefits may follow for the sub-continent?

I do not think that it is for us to look to one country to solve the problem by itself. The problem must be solved by Bangladesh, Pakistan and India. It is not for us to point a finger at one country and tell it that it must reach a solution.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, so long after the war has finished, it is very wrong that prisoners of war should continue to find themselves being used as political pawns in a diplomatic game in the Indian sub-continent? We have some leverage in the area. I should have thought that the Foreign Office could be a bit firmer than it has been this afternoon.

Whether statements made in this House which the hon. and learned Gentleman regards as firm will contribute to the release of the prisoners of war is debatable. It depends on the nature of the statement made. The best prospect of achieving the return of the prisoners of war to their own country is that negotiations between the countries concerned should be allowed to continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the weekly wages rates paid to locally recruited employees of the embassy and consular offices in South Africa; and how this compares to equivalent employees of the Foreign Office in the United Kingdom.

There are 73 United Kingdom-based staff and 153 locally engaged staff employed in our posts in South Africa. I have no plans to increase this number. I am arranging to have circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of salary scales of locally engaged staff in South Africa. A direct comparison between these and rates paid in the United Kingdom would not, I believe, be useful.

Bearing in mind the recent revelation of how badly British companies behave in South Africa in terms of payment of wages, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his own house is in order? Would it not be a good idea for him to take the lead in this matter and ensure that wages paid to locally recruited staff, especially Africans—who tend to be paid much less than they should be—are at least at the same level as those of comparable posts in this country? Will he also ensure that employees of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not resident in embassies—which employ many people from outside—have their needs carefully considered and are also paid decent wages?

Yes, Sir. It is right to do so. We want to be good employers, and I hope that the figures which the hon. Gentleman will see in the OFFICIAL REPORT will convince him that we are making progress in this direction. We pay various salary levels in different countries. One must take account of local conditions. For example, in the United States one has to pay very high salaries, while in other countries they are not so high. We try to be good employers in the conditions of the country concerned.

If we are to investigate the wage rates paid by private firms in foreign countries, should not we also look at India, South America and half a dozen other countries where the wage rates are very similar to, and in some cases worse than, those in South Africa, about which complaint has been made?

Wherever we are in the world, in whichever country, I hope we shall be good employers and pay a reasonable rate for the job.

Aside from the question of salaries, will the right hon. Gentleman examine the conditions under which some of our local staff are employed in South Africa? Is he aware that they are subject to the same migration rules as other Africans and that we have not so far created a diplomatic compound there in which they could live with their families? The result is that many of them are forced to live hundreds of miles from their families.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, a great deal of the labour in South Africa is migratory, in the sense that it comes in for a few years and then leaves again. If he has a particular case in mind, perhaps he will correspond with me. I should like to look into these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will cause an examination to be made of arrangements in Her Majesty's Embassy in Islamabad to interview potential dependants wishing to join immigrants in this country in view of the long waiting time for such interviews.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are, respectively, the shortest, longest and average periods taken to process application for entry certificates by wives or other dependants of British subjects to the immigration department of the embassy in Islamabad.

For some time the inflow of new applications has greatly exceeded the rate at which potential dependants can be interviewed. Consequently there is a substantial waiting period. The embassy is currently reviewing its arrangements for handling applications.

I very much appreciate and acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's attitude towards this problem. Does not he agree that waiting periods of up to seven months for the undisputed dependants of people living in this country to be interviewed involve heartbreaking separation of husbands from wives and parents from children? Will he, therefore, take a very close look at the arrangements at Islamabad, including, if necessary, supplying further staff there in order that the waiting periods can be cut down as quickly and as effectively as possible?

We examined the position last year, and a joint mission from the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office went out to make changes, which have been implemented. This is by far the largest post we have for interviewing people who want to settle here. We have 46 officers engaged entirely on this business, and there is a limit to what we can do.

Does not my hon. Friend agree with some of us who have visited the department there that there is another side to the question put by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman)? Is it not the case that these delays are caused basically by the pressure of illegal or would-be illegal immigrants wanting to come here, and that it is that pressure which is causing the potential breakdown of the whole system there?

It is unfortunately true that a fairly high proportion of the applications are bogus. That means that all applications have to be looked at very carefully. That is the duty laid upon the officers by this House and it is being done.

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a period of seven months' delay—which he has not disputed, and the fact of which is unchallengeable—would be regarded as intolerable for indigenous British citizens who were making application? Does not he also agree that delays of this kind, in these circumstances, suggest a discrimination in treatment which is very bad for race relations in this country?

I deny that there is any discrimination. I emphasise that the delays take place only in the case of people who want to come here to settle. Visitors and others—who total more than double the number of those who want to come here to settle—get their applications granted at once over the counter.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must match expedition with closeness of scrutiny, and that the officers of the department work very hard for very long hours to carry out their difficult duties thoroughly? Will he remember that the immigration section of our embassy there may be the only department that Pakistanis see, and that therefore the job must continue to be done well?

It is true that we must do the job properly, because the House has said that we must make sure that those who seek to come here have a right to do so. A high proportion of applicants have no right to come, so we must look at all the applications. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the way in which the officers work long hours under very difficult conditions.

Will the Minister confer with the Home Secretary on the matter, to ensure that sympathetic consideration is given to these cases? Will he also ensure that the statement he made a few moments ago is correct, and that intending visitors are accorded the right to come to see their relatives in this country? I have evidence that that is not so.

I shall be glad to examine any evidence that the hon. Gentleman has. He talks about sympathetic consideration. I hope that we are sympathetic, and well-mannered, but we have a duty to find out whether applicants are dependants.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to improve diplomatic relations with Greece.

It is already the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work for good and constructive relations with Greece as a NATO ally.

I realise that the only step that could produce a real improvement in Anglo-Greek relations is beyond the Government's power, but will my hon. Friend make it unmistakably clear to the Greek Government that it can only make relations worse if they persist in arresting, harassing and persecuting long-standing friends of this country, such as Professor John Pesmazoglou, Mrs. Virginia Tsouderos and Professor Dimitrios Tsatsos, whose only offence is that of preferring democracy to military dictatorship? May I press my hon. Friend for an assurance that so long as those conditions persist there is no question of a visit to Greece by a Foreign Office Minister?

I appreciate the feelings of sympathy which my hon. Friend has expressed—and which I know are shared by hon. Members on both sides —for political detainees anywhere. My right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear to Greek leaders during his unofficial visit to Athens last September that the question of political prisoners causes considerable concern in this country. I can also give my hon. Friend the assurance that no ministerial visits are planned at present.

Is it not a fact that tomorrow there is to be an official visit by Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton, Chief of the Defence Staff? Lest that create the false impression that the British people support the brutal regimé of the Greek colonels, will the Minister ask his Cabinet colleagues to cancel the visit?

The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that the visit of the Chief of the Defence Staff is in return for the visit of General Angelis, Chief of the Greek Defence Staff, and Admiral Margharitis, Commander in Chief of the Greek Navy, in 1971 and 1972. It is interesting that there was no complaint or Question in the House in 1971 or 1972. Greece is our ally in NATO, and the visit by the Chief of the Defence Staff is in the NATO context. The policy carried out by the Government is essentially the same as that followed by the previous administration.

Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that we all live in the same world and that although there may be great differences of approach in various countries the best way to get people to appreciate what we regard as a reasonable line is to keep in touch with them, visit them and try to share minds?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister recall that NATO is an alliance set up in defence of freedom and democracy? Therefore, will he undertake to make representations to the Greek Government and the Turkish Government—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Portugal."]—yes, and all the areas for which the hon. Gentleman is responsible in the Foreign Office, that we deplore and object strongly to allies who are with us in the defence of freedom undertaking to establish dictatorial regimés, and carrying out political persecution, torture, arbitrary arrest and the arrest of lawyers defending people who have been arrested by the régimes?

I cannot do better than to read to the hon. Gentleman the following quotation:

"Actions against Greece in NATO would not necessarily help the Greek people, but would undermine the security of the southeast flank of NATO, thus putting at risk democratic ideals and parliamentary institutions on a scale far wider than Greece."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th December 1969; Vol. 793, c. 1139.]

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what capacity the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster addressed the European Parliament on 15th March.

As I made clear in my speech, I was speaking in my capacity as a British Minister, and expressing the views of Her Majesty's Government.

In that case, why did the right hon. Gentleman tell his Conservative colleagues in Strasbourg that he had altered the views he expressed to take some account of the views of the rest of the Council of Ministers? Is it to be the practice that British national representatives in Community institutions will alter the British view in order to compromise in advance with the views of the people with whom they are negotiating?

I recognise the Press report to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. It proves once again that even the Press can be wrong and can erroneously report what is said.

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

We are now in touch with the Icelandic Government with a view to agreeing a mutually convenient date after Easter for the resumption of ministerial talks.

Have the Icelandic Government said that they will have the talks at ministerial level after Easter, or are the officials still merely fishing around to try to find suitable items for an agenda to make an agreement? What has been the Icelandic Government's reaction to the repeated protests made by our ambassador about the harassment of our trawlers in the disputed waters?

I hope to receive an answer tomorrow about dates that I have proposed for ministerial talks towards the end of the month. I hope that the Icelanders will accept that ministerial talks are necessary. Allies should talk, and not confront each other. We have received no clear assurances that there will not be harassment.

Has my right hon. Friend had any recent consultation with the West German Government after their consultations with the Icelandic Government? Have any consultations taken place between the United Kingdom Government and the Russian Government?

We are in almost daily touch with the German Government on the matter. There is no immediate problem demanding urgent consideration with the Government of the Soviet Union, but they are aware of our position.

As the safety and welfare of our fishermen are equally dear to both sides of the House, this is not a party issue. The Opposition have therefore consistently backed the Government's policy, and we shall continue to do so. Did not the Icelanders wish to come before Easter? Is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to see them in London during the week beginning 30th April?

I will not say exactly what I have proposed, but the hon. Gentleman is not far off the dates I have suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Government of the Republic of Ireland with a view to preventing the illegal import of arms through the Republic for use by the IRA in Northern Ireland.

We are in touch with the Government of the Republic of Ireland whenever we believe they are in a position to help prevent supplies of arms to the IRA for use in Northern Ireland. For obvious reasons details must remain confidential.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply but, in view of the publicity which has been given to the "Claudia" affair, the unlikelihood that that ship was carrying only five tons of arms from the Mediterranean, and the fact that the most modern Russian rockets are now being used by the IRA in Northern Ireland, will my right hon. Friend use his maximum efforts to ensure that the border is properly closed to the illegal import of arms into the United Kingdom from Eire?

Yes, Sir.