asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact he has had with the Government of Tanzania following the sentencing of a British journalist, Percy Cleaver, to three years in prison after a secret trial in Dar-es-Salaam ; and to what extent Mr. Cleaver has had access to the British consul.

The high commission at Dar-es-Salaam has been in contact at official level with the Government of Tanzania. Mr. Cleaver was visited 13 times by high commission staff during the period between his arrest in June 1972 and the opening of his trial in July 1973. I regret that since then, despite repeated requests, no visits have been allowed although one is promised for 11th December.

Does my right hon. Friend not recognise that the last part of his reply constitutes an international outrage? Is he aware that any weakness on the part of the Foreign Office only provokes similar incidents? Is he further aware of my constituent, Mr. Coles, this time in Zambia, who has had three ribs broken and a lung punctured, and who has been jumped on by thugs in the Zambian Army for no offence whatever, other than that of holding a British passport? Will the British Foreign Office demand an apology and compensation, and make the strongest possible representations about such incidents, which occur all too frequently?

My hon. Friend's Question referred to Mr. Cleaver, in Tanzania. His supplementary point relates to Mr. Coles, in Zambia. I would point out, with respect to Mr. Cleaver, that we expect he will receive a visit from a member of the high commission on 11th December, in a fortnight's time. On the subject of Mr. Coles, it is clear that he was badly beaten. We have expressed our concern to the Zambians and asked for an explanation. The high commissioner has discussed the case with the Zambian Prime Minister.

Although there does not seem to be much indignation from the Labour benches about the treatment of British subjects, may we be assured that Her Majesty's Government are at least as zealous on behalf of these individuals as they rightly were in the case of Mr. Niesewand?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the fact that we have raised the matter with the Zambian Prime Minister is an indication that we do regard it as serious.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on the Labour benches take great exception to the remarks of the hon. Member for Chig-well (Mr. Biggs-Davison), since there are things going on in Rhodesia just as reprehensible as events in Zambia or Tanzania? Is he further aware that we object to all such events, without exception?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total number of persons resident in the United Kingdom to whom diplomatic immunity is extended.

A total of 2,065 officials in the United Kingdom, with their families, are entitled to full diplomatic immunity. A further 2,832 are entitled to a more restricted immunity.

Is the Minister aware that this great number of people who are entitled to immunity gives rise to considerable disquiet when immunity is abused in such matters as traffic offences and even more so in relation to criminal offences? Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will expedite the inquiries he is making into the alleged assault upon my constituent, Mr. Levy, by the third secretary of an embassy in London, in which alleged assault Mr. Levy was seriously injured?

The size of the diplomatic missions in London compares broadly with the total numbers of staff in British embassies and diplomatic missions overseas, who have the same immunities. On the specific point that my hon. Friend has raised, I have asked the Home Office to let me have urgently the police report of this incident. As soon as I have been able to look at this I shall be able to consider whether we should take the matter up with the South African Ambassador.

Will the Minister make clear to all diplomatic missions in London that if diplomatic immunity is constantly abused the Government will have to resort to declaring people personœ non grata?

All the diplomatic missions should be aware that it is their duty to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if petrol rationing has to be introduced here it will apply to embassy cars and the cars belonging to foreign diplomats?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that that is a hypothetical question. We shall consider that matter if and when it arises.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has raised with the Syrian authorities their refusal to comply with the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War; and, if so, with what results.

We have been in touch with the Syrian authorities on a number of occasions. They continue to insist on certain steps being taken by Israel in connection with the Third and Fourth Conventions before they will hand over lists. We have asked the Israelis to clarify their attitude to the Fourth Convention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen some sad and sickening photographs of young Israeli prisoners, gagged, bound, shot and dumped in the rocks by the Syrians in the Golan? Does he appreciate the anguish felt by the parents of those still missing? Will he renew his welcome efforts to get the Syrians to comply with their obligations under the Geneva convention in the hope, at least, that this may lead to a better atmosphere for peace?

Yes, Sir. I share the hon. Gentleman's anxieties and the anguish of those who have had relatives put in this very dangerous and horrible position. There ought to be no question of reciprocity in this matter. Every country should act in accordance with the convention.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the resumption, not so long ago, of diplomatic relations between this country and Syria? Will he say whether the value and the result of those diplomatic relations can be estimated as being high if Syria refuses to accept humanitarian standards?

Diplomatic relations have only recently been restored, and I hope that they will give us an influence that we did not have previously.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Dutch Government about EEC policy on energy supplies, following restrictions on oil imported into Rotterdam.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Dutch Government about EEC policy on energy supplies.

At the Council of Ministers on 5th and 6th November, attended by my right hon. Friend and myself, the energy situation was discussed with our Netherlands and other Community colleagues. It was agreed to keep matters under review and to work collectively and individually for a solution of the Middle East problem. The declaration on the Middle East was a first contribution to that end. Further consultations were held in Copenhagen on 20th November on this and other matters.

What is the position of the Royal Dutch Shell Company in relation to both the British and Dutch Governments in this matter?

The Royal Dutch Company is incorporated in the Netherlands and is, therefore, under the statutes of that country.

What is the point of discussing European energy co-operation or, indeed European economic co-operation if we are prepared to help destroy the Dutch oil industry on the instructions of our Arab oil suppliers?

If the case were as my hon. Friend has postulated, we should indeed be faced with great problems. The truth is that we have had profound and deep discussions with all our Community partners, including the Netherlands, and have reached a conclusion as to our common line of action, which we are now pursuing. It would be unwise to seek to go beyond that common line of action, agreed with all our partners.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that we shall approach this problem collectively and individually. What does he mean by "individually"? Shall we approach the problem individually and forget what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying "collectively"?

No. In making this response I simply mean that there is a field of work in which collective action is useful. There is also one in which individual action is useful. What we are concerned with doing, obviously, is maximising oil supplies to the Community.

Does my right hon. Friend recall a leader in The Times earlier this month which said that if we do not supply oil to Holland we shall be turning our backs upon Europe? Are we supplying oil to Holland, or are we turning our backs on Europe,—or is there a division of opinion over the Common Market, at last, between The Times and the Government?

I can say with assurance that we are not turning our backs on either the Common Market or the Netherlands. Concerning The Times, the leader writer must defend himself ; I must not do that.

Is Shell ordering the diversion of supplies, directly or indirectly? The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an agreement among the members of the EEC on a common line of action. Are we to understand that the Dutch Government are in full accord with that decision by the EEC members?

On the latter point, yes, the Dutch Government are in full accord. At the meeting on 20th November to which I have referred, they repeated their accord with the common line of action proposed. Concerning the Shell Company—and, indeed, any other oil company—there is no question of diversion. It has its own decisions to make about the routing of the supplies to which it has access in the various producing areas. That is the position. There is no question of diversion in so far as it makes decisions in relation to its own routing schedules.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the European Commission's latest proposals for a European energy policy.

The latest proposals were made by the Commission in August. They were mainly about oil and have since been under discussion by officials of member States. Further detailed proposals for a European energy policy are awaited.

Will Britain obey the Arab directive to apply oil sanctions against Holland and the Rotterdam refineries? If so, is it not a waste of time to talk about a European energy policy? Surely it is meaningless without solidarity and mutual aid. Does the Government's policy of even-handedness not also apply to Europe?

No, I think my hon. Friend has got it wrong. The Arab action has been in relation to supplies emanating from their countries to Holland. It has, therefore, so far as I am aware, not in any way at this stage sought to impose a ban on movements between European Community countries. Indeed, there are provisions within the treaties which would at this present stage, except in the case of an emergency, make that action not correct within the framework of the Community.

May we take it that in the discussions which have been taking place in the last few days between representatives of Saudi Arabia and the oil-producing countries and the British and French Governments, no demand has been made by the oil-producing countries that other European countries should cut down their exports to Holland?

No. So far as the missions which have reached this country are concerned, they have acted entirely in accordance with their own statements concerning their will to give certain preferences of supply to certain European countries. So far as I am aware, there has been no question of endeavouring to impose limitations of movement between Community countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on developments in the Middle East as they affect United Kingdom interests and policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in the Middle East following the Arabi-Israeli conflict as it affects United Kingdom interests and policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about steps taken by Her Majesty's Government to promote a peace settlement in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Middle East, so far as United Kingdom interests are involved.

Egyptian and Israeli military representatives have agreed on the implementation of much of the agreement of 11th November and are now discussing the disengagement of the armies. We hope that a conference to negotiate a permanent settlement will open soon. I am in close touch with the other Governments concerned about the preparations for this conference.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the basis for a real peace settlement in the Middle East, in the interests of Britain, Israel, and the Palestinian Arabs, is still the implementation of Resolution 242, which must be infinitely preferred to killing and bloodshed? Will he do all within his power to see that there is now some practical implementation of the proposals of that resolution?

Yes, Sir. Within the framework of Resolution 242 it ought to be possible to work out a settlement which combines the two essential things—withdrawal, and Israeli security.

Has my right hon. Friend received any assurance that the peace conference to resolve all the issues will take place within a measurable time? Has he put forward any clearer views on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to the shape of the final settlement?

One does not want to lay down what I could call a blueprint for a settlement, because clearly a final settlement must be agreed, essentially, between the Israelis and their Arab neighbours. But we have expressed opinions as to the kind of settlement which we think should be possible. I hope that the conference will take place quite soon.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of spelling out, consequent upon his recent statement on the Middle East, how his construction of Resolution 242 differs from that of the Egyptian Government?

I do not need to spell out the differences between our point of view and that of any other Government. These are matters for reconciliation at a peace conference. No one would like to lay down the law now.

What is my right hon. Friend's information about the rearming of Arab States by the Soviet bloc? In the light of that, what is Her Majesty's Government's policy about any future resumption of arms supply from this country?

Part of a final settlement must be an agreement as to how arms should be supplied in the area, and in what quantities ; in other words, a rationing system. It is too early, therefore, to say whether we can resume the supply of arms to either side.

Is it the case that the peace conference is due to start on 18th December? Will the Foreign Secretary be there? If not, how will he represent United Kingdom interests and policies?

As I have said to the House previously, the essential thing is to get the conference started. It must start with the combatants—Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Israel. After the Moscow agreement, the Americans and the Soviet Union will, I have no doubt, be in close attendance.

Not us?

No, not at the start. But the House can fairly assume that there will be many difficulties. It is a long road. It is then that the permanent members of the Security Council will be able to help, because the whole thing must be under the umbrella of the Security Council.

Will my right hon. Friend seek to ensure that the Security Council extends the mandate for the peace-keeping force for longer than six months, because the period of six months greatly reduces the effectiveness of that force and gives the indication that it may be withdrawn at too early a date?

I should have thought that if it was to give confidence to anyone, the force would have to be there for many years, in order that confidence may grow. I should have thought that another condition must be that it should not be withdrawn at the request of any one of the combatants.

How can there be any meaningful negotiations towards a peace settlement in the Middle East on 18th December or any other date until the international community has prevailed upon Israel to withdraw from the territories she won after the cease-fire?

The withdrawal and the extent of the withdrawal must be part of the subject matter for the peace conference.

Will not my right hon. Friend say a little more in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison)? Is it not alarming that the resupply of weapons to the Arabs is now such that they are in the position in which they were before the recent outbreak of hostilities? Does this not make the achievement of a real peace conference that much more difficult?

I should think that many of the weapons lost by the Israelis and the Arabs have been replaced.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the results to date of the conference taking place to bring about a reduction in armed forces in Europe.

The negotiations which began in Vienna on 30th October on the mutual reduction of armed forces and armaments and associated measures in Central Europe are still at a very early stage. Representatives of the countries participating on both sides have made opening statements setting out their general approach to the negotiations. They are now developing their ideas in more detail.

Is there any validity in the growing speculation in Britain that, in the event of these negotiations failing, the Government intend to introduce military conscription? In other words, will the right hon. Gentleman say that the existing defence forces, recruited on a voluntary basis, are adequate to honour our foreign policy commitments?

It is early days to talk about the negotiations failing. Although it may be a sign that I am out of touch, the hon. Gentleman's comment is the first I have heard of any speculation about the reintroduction of conscription.

Will my right hon. Friend be very careful in the progress which is made at these talks? At a time when the Iron Curtain countries, particularly Russia, are increasing the level of their armed forces, would not the so-called policy of the Opposition of decreasing the Defence Estimates by £1,000 million be absolutely disastrous for this country and for the whole of Western European defence?

I think that all hon. Members know in their hearts—and I am sure that the responsible leaders of the Opposition know—that to cut defence spending by £1,000 million would be totally irresponsible.

The right hon. Gentleman will doubtless have seen the remarks made—I think last week—by the French representatives at Western European Union, particularly about the possibility of an Anglo-French nuclear force which excluded the Americans and was outside the North Atlantic Treaty. Will the Government give a specific undertaking that in no circumstances will they consider the establishment of an Anglo-French nuclear force outside the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has asked an entirely new question which has nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper. If he will table a Question I shall do my best to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will appoint a commission to examine the social and economic reasons which prevent the Government applying certain ILO conventions to Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will establish a working party to inquire into the rates of pay earned by workers in Hong Kong.

No, Sir.

Is it not something of a scandal that in one of the major economies of the Far East a large number of ILO conventions are not applied, or are not applied fully, although they would be of enormous benefit to working people in Hong Kong? Does not this matter fall for urgent consideration and investigation by the Government, or is it simply a case that the Government know their responsibility and just will not exercise it?

No ; I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is being very fair. Twenty-eight declarations of application have been made, 19 of which are of full application, and improved declarations are under consideration in respect of five more conventions. There is full employment in Hong Kong. Many workers receive additional benefits, such as free medical attention, subsidised meals, good attendance bonuses and subsidised transport to and from work. Some employers supply their workers with free or subsidised accommodation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been out to Hong Kong in recent times realise the tremendous amount of progress that has been made in the face of very great difficulties, in all these respects?

Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is correct. There have been great difficulties. The speech made by the Governor last month underlined the imaginative programme which he has in mind for the people of Hong Kong.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that, with 15 per cent. of the work force receiving less than 75p a day, Hong Kong is increasingly regarded as Britain's sweat shop colony? Does the Under-Secretary understand the real anxiety that this creates amongst Lancashire's textile workers, who are obliged to compete with textiles produced in such conditions?

I have the highest regard for the hon. Gentleman, but I recommend that before he comes to the House again he does his homework. Between March 1964 and March 1973 the nominal wage index in Hong Kong rose to 239 and the real wage index by 159 per cent. Meaningful comparisons must be based on the local cost of living. Wages today in Hong Kong are the highest of any country in the Far East outside Japan.

I support all that has been said about social and economic conditions by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). May I ask the Minister why he finds it impossible to have a commission of inquiry into political affairs and also affairs of what might be termed law and order—the matter of the police and corruption over the past 20 years? Why does the Under-Secretary stubbornly turn his mind against this? He must be as aware as I am of the feeling inside the colony itself.

This question is going rather wider than the original Questions on the Order Paper, but I should like to help the hon. Gentleman. On the problem of corruption in Hong Kong, which is what I think the hon. Gentleman is implying, he will know that the setting up of an independent anti-corruption commission in Hong Kong has now taken place. The Government fully support this and the strong measures which the governor is taking to deal with the admitted problem of corruption.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice his Department gives to British firms in Sri Lanka about the level of wages for their employees in that country.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that millions of viewers were shocked by a recent "World in Action" film showing tea workers and their families diseased and dying through literally starvation wages of £1 a week paid by British firms? Will the Minister set up an inquiry into this, similar to the one dealing with wages in South Africa?

I am aware that many people were concerned about that television programme. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that Sri Lanka is a developing country, struggling with an extremely bad economic situation, and conditions compare unfavourably with conditions that would be acceptable in this country. British firms in Sri Lanka pay the rates laid down by the Sri Lanka Government. Tea companies in Sri Lanka are barely profitable. Indeed, many are losing money.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his description of Sri Lanka being in a difficult situation is hardly apt to describe a situation in which there is rationing worse than there was during the war? One of the problems for those British companies which are left there is as to their belief in the future, because there has been so much nationalisation there and they do not want to invest because they feel they might be nationalised tomorrow by the Government of Sri Lanka.

The main worry does not arise from the political prospects, although no doubt they are very relevant. The main worry is that the price of tea as a commodity has not risen and many of these countries are in a very difficult economic situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations over the flogging of civilians in Namibia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the United Nations over the flogging of civilians by South African police in Namibia.

None, Sir. But I share the hon. Members' concern. We regard this as the primary responsibility of the South African Government, whom we have urged to investigate and to end practices of this kind.

Is the Minister aware that even in South Africa there is widespread outrage at the barbarism practised in Namibia? Does this not show that the South African Government's claim to operate the mandate in the spirit which was intended is an absolute farce? Will the Government now accept the International Court of Justice's ruling that South Africa's presence in Namibia is illegal, and urge them to leave that country as soon as possible?

The main point is that we have instructed Her Majesty's Ambassador to express our concern about these reports, and to urge the South African Government to intervene urgently. The hon. Member will know that, just recently, the Supreme Court in Windhoek has granted interim interdicts prohibiting the flogging of their political opponents and of women by one of the two major tribal authorities an the area, and I am sure that the Supreme Court's decision will be respected.

Is the Minister aware that he can show as much concern as he likes, but the response that has come from M. C. Botha, the Minister for Bantu Administration, is that it is none of the South African Government's business? Is the Minister also aware that if he went to South-West Africa and described that territory as "Namibia" he would be liable to flogging, because calling their country "Namibia" is the offence which most of the hundred people who have been publicly flogged have committed? Surely he can do something more than merely show concern.

I should have thought the most we could do was to express concern and urge that the South African Government should intervene urgently, and this we have done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the matter of EEC political union is next to be discussed in the EEC Council.

No date has been fixed for discussion in the Council of the objective of European Union set out in paragraph 16 of the 1972 Paris summit communiqué. The Paris summit requested the institutions of the Community to draw up a report on the subject before the end of 1975.

What parliamentary or statutory authority do Her Majesty's Government have for this commitment to European Union? If there is no such authority, is this not an unprecedented extension of the power of the executive?

No, Sir. This is a matter which should be studied by the Community and by the Community institutions, and reports should be made to the Governments representing the different countries in the Community. I see nothing unconstitutional in that. Every Government can consider the matter, and the national Parliaments will have an opportunity to comment.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is becoming increasingly necessary to have a common approach to foreign policy on the grave matters which confront the European Community at the moment? Is it not also true that the countries in the EEC are, without exception, in favour of closer collaboration in the foreign policy field? Will my right hon. Friend therefore use his best offices to accelerate the move towards closer collaboration in foreign policy?

Yes. It is in the political field that we have had some success. The handicaps have been in the economic field. How far we can take this process is a matter for consensus over the next few years. I think the House knows that I have never attached federal or confederal labels. I think that Europe will work out her own pattern of co-operation.

As the Prime Minister has committed himself to European Union by 1980, and since European Union must, by definition, include some concept of political union, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he really owes it to the country, in this extremely important matter, at least, to publish, even in draft form, what he himself thinks should be the content of such a political union?

No, Sir, because I think it is sensible to proceed step by step and see where we can agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans officially to meet the Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs.

No, Sir.

The situation has now changed, but will the Under-Secretary of State say whether, before there is recognition of the new régime, he will ask for assurances that there will be a restoration of democracy in Greece? Can he also tell us whether NATO has any views about the constant seizures of power by the army, and whether we, as a member of NATO, will urge the restoration of liberty, democracy and the rule of law in accordance with the terms of the charter of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?

As the hon. Gentleman said, the situation has changed since he put down his question. We are of course assessing the question of Greece, to determine whether the new régime fulfils our normal criteria for recognition. As regards representations, I told the House on 23rd July that the then Greek Government were aware of our hope that Greece will be restored to full democratic processes. But we have no locus standi to make representations to any foreign government, even after the question of recognition has been decided, about the way in which they run their internal affairs.

As one of the first acts of the new régime in Greece has been to denounce President Papadopoulos for rigging the plebiscite, and as acceptance of that plebiscite was the ground given for recognition of that régime, should not the hon. Gentleman now apologise?

I think that all these matters are internal affairs for Greece, and are not ones for Her Majesty's Government. But I should like to say that I am naturally distressed by the loss of life in the recent clashes in Athens, and the House will wish to join me in expressing the hope that Greece will very soon be restored to full democratic processes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made on the implementation of the Joint Agreement on Communications of June 1971 between Great Britain, the Falkland Islands and Argentina.

Good progress has been made on the implementation of the agreement. There has been a marked increase in traffic between the Islands and the Argentine mainland and there is now a weekly air service between Port Stanley and Comodoro Rivadavia.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to see a continuation of the improvement in the relationship between Britain and the Falkland Islands on the one hand and the Argentine on the other, it is important to stick rigidly to the terms of the agreement? Will he say, first, whether, and, if so, when, Britain will construct a permanent airfield? Secondly, does he agree that this kind of practical arrangement, which treats the question of sovereignty as a separate issue, might be a guideline for an improved relationship between Great Britain and Spain over the question of Gibraltar?

Work on the permanent airfield is going forward as planned. I take note of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I hope that the Spanish authorities will do so, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will set up a consular office at Ahmedabad, Gujarat State, India, to deal with applications for entry certificates for the United Kingdom.

No, Sir. This is a matter which can most satisfactorily continue to be handled by the office of the deputy high commissioner in Bombay.

Is the Minister aware that I have constituents who have relatives living in India, who have a right of entry into this country but have to travel hundreds of miles to Bombay at great expense, and who are often required to do that two or three times in order to have their papers examined? Is he further aware that the setting up of a small consular office, where there could be an initial examination of papers prior to the final examination taking place in Bombay, would be of great help to these people and, I suggest, to the high commission office in Bombay? Will he therefore reconsider this decision?

Of course I am concerned whenever difficulties are caused to people, or whenever any delays occur. But one of the main causes of delay is that the post must satisfy itself that there is no element of fraud in the application—that is very important—and setting up branch offices would only add to the delay. We believe that in Bombay applicants are normally interviewed on the day on which they apply, so there is no particular problem there.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I, too, have Gujarati constituents, who have difficulty because their relations tend to turn up at London Airport without proper papers issued in India and are turned back, because of the tough nature of the Immigration Act? Will he make it quite clear to our people in Bombay that they should not allow people to leave India without proper papers, and thereby avoid a great deal of disappointment?

Obviously, my hon. Friend has raised an important point. There is a very real problem, due to the incidence of forged documents, or of genuine documents bearing false particulars. In these circumstances, it is really important that all applicants are interviewed and all documents checked very carefully by the High Commission Office.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a statement on Great Britain's future relations with the Commonwealth.

We attach great value to the Commonwealth association. We shall continue to do so, and to play an active part in Commonwealth affairs.

In view of the devastating effect which the Government's obsession with the EEC has had on our relations with the Commonwealth and the utter failure of the Prime Minister to make any impact at the Ottawa Common-wealth Conference, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the British Government must now take the initiative on the widest possible range of social, economic and educational effects, in order to try to re-establish our credibility in the Commonwealth?

The hon. Gentleman is completely out of touch with the situation. The Ottawa Conference demonstrated that our Commonwealth links are stronger than ever before.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it was absolutely clear at the recent Common, wealth Parliamentary Association Conference in London that there is still tremendous enthusiasm for the Commonwealth and furthermore, that most of the delegations there not only understood Britain's decision to join the EEC but accepted in full our right to be an independent nation?

I attended that conference, and I can underline and reinforce every word of what my hon. Friend has said.

In view of the answer to Question No. 8, to the effect that the high commissioners do not advise local British firms about wages, will the Minister confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office still receives regular reports from our high commissioners on the activities of British firms in those territories?

I really cannot see what that has got to do with the Question which I have just answered. If the hon. Gentleman had put the supplementary question to Question No. 8, my answer would have been "Yes."

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations, decisions and directives purporting to have legal effect in the United Kingdom have been approved by the EEC Commission in 1973 without reference to the Council of Ministers.

Between 1st January and 15th November 1973 the Commission made 2,836 regulations, and addressed to the United Kingdom, either alone or in conjunction with other member States, 126 decisions and seven directives. These are binding in accordance with the provisions of Article 189 of the EEC Treaty.

Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that these administrative decrees, made in secret by an unelected body, with no representatives in this country on it—since the commissioners are international civil servants—and with no consultations with the British Parliament, have any morally or legally binding effect on this country?

Within the framework of the total activities of the Community it is obviously necessary and right that within these detailed areas there should be delegations to a body competent to deal with it. But the right hon. Gentleman is wrong in what he says. The fact is that the main parts of these instruments are subject to consideration by management committees, on which there is official advice from the member countries.

Will not my right hon. Friend confirm that at least half the regulations which have been mentioned deal with the variable levy on cereals, which are purely administrative, and that it would be a complete and utter waste of time of this House to debate them at all? They change from day to day.

My hon. Friend is correct in every particular. I suggest that it would also be of interest to the House to see exactly what the Select Committee of the House has suggested in terms of a screening and sifting arrangement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he hopes to place on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to the estimate of subject headings likely to come up for discussion in the Council in December, which was placed in the Vote Office on 26th November.

As long as Britain remains a member of the Common Market, should not the Government try to get a harmonised and even-handed policy towards sanctions against Rhodesia? Is it right that Britain should operate 100 per cent. sanctions against Rhodesia while France, Germany and Italy are the biggest sanctions busters in Europe? While I accept that the Government have raised this matter with the countries concerned and with the United Nations, may we be told the reason why it has never been put on the agenda of the Council of Ministers? Would it upset the Common Market countries?

My hon. Friend is under an entirely mistaken impression. The truth is that these issues are matters to be raised directly with the countries concerned, irrespective of whether they are members of the Community, and through the United Nations. This is, in fact, what the Government do.

At the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, no doubt, the Government will wish to discuss a common energy policy for Europe. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his last answer to me a few minutes ago, confirm that it is open to Common Market countries, if they wish, to increase the level of oil exports from the other Common Market countries to Holland, and that the Arab representatives who are in Europe at the moment have not sought to remove that right? Is that the position? Could we be clear about it?

May I make this quite clear? The question of the movement of products between Community countries, to which I imagine the hon. and learned Gentleman refers, is a matter for the industry involved. The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to Governments or countries doing these things. It is, in fact, companies which are responsible for this movement.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will at least not accede to the request made by Mr. Sadat to the EEC recently, for 400 tons of grain, so long as there is any question of fuel not being made fully available to members of the European Economic Community?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, whether he will seek to ensure the establishment of a political secretariat at the forthcoming EEC summit conference.

I cannot say now what will be discussed at the summit conference in Copenhagen. As regards a political secretariat, Her Majesty's Government remain of the opinion that in due course a modest secretariat would be useful. This would, of course, be for agreement with our partners.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that as things stand at present, every step towards European integration means, essentially, a diminution of democratic control? Is it not, therefore, most urgent that some mechanism be established which will enable a full and continuous discussion of how the Community should be democratised, how Parliament could be strengthened and how direct elections can be introduced?

How we conduct ourselves most efficiently is a matter which we should always be discussing, but that is a matter for discussion and decision within the Council. I cannot forecast at what point we shall agree to set up the secretariat. The political machinery for helping Foreign Ministers is working reasonably satisfactorily, but the secretariat will be an improvement upon that.

Would it not be even more disgraceful and more dangerous for this political secretariat to be established? Any decisions and directives it issued could only be read by Members of this House with no opportunity for comment, debate or amendment, and with no chance of us rejecting them.

I was not thinking of a political secretariat in the terms in which the hon. Member speaks. I was thinking of one which would serve the Foreign Ministers.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm what my right hon. Friend the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) that there are certain questions such as dealings with Rhodesia where they are to act directly or through the United Nations, and as though the Common Market had never existed? Are there matters which may be disregarded and which do not involve the special relationship?

The breach of sanctions by individual firms is a matter for the individual Governments which are responsible. I cannot see that the Community could have any influence, for example, over a particular firm in France, Germany or Italy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the rules relating to taking up of appointments by former members of the staff of the Crown Agents in commercial companies.

I have been asked to reply.

Will the Minister confirm that Mr. Alan Challis was, until the last day of October this year, Director of Finance of the Crown Agents and from 1st November this year is the Deputy Chairman of the First National Finance Corporation? Will he also confirm that the Crown Agents held, before that date and now, a large holding of First National stock amounting, in June, to 10,622,000 shares and now amounting to about 8½ per cent. of the stock of First National? Does the Minister agree that it was the job of this man to put that money in that place or somewhere else, and in the light of these facts will the Minister responsible make a statement to the House about this case?

I can confirm the position held by Mr. Challis. The hon. Member is implying that there is a conflict of loyalties here. The Chairman of the Crown Agents has reported to the Minister that he was satisfied that the relationship between the Crown Agents and the FNFC and between Mr. Challis and the FNFC were not incompatible with his holding this appointment. On the scale of the Crown Agents' investment in the FNFC, Crown Agents hold about 6 per cent. of the equity as a routine investment.

Is it right that rules applying to civil servants should be applied in quite this way to staff of the Crown Agents? Civil servants are not normally asked to be directors of companies holding equity shares, and there is therefore an anomaly here which, frankly, the normal rules do not cover. Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this and consider what special rules now need to be applied to members of the Crown Agents' staff.

I can certainly look at the rules. The hon. Lady will notice that I said that the rules follow those applied to civil servants. The basis of those rules can be found in the July 1937 White Paper on the acceptance of business appointments by officers of the Crown Service. I shall certainly look at this again, if that is regarded as being desirable, but the rules are long established and well respected.

The Minister referred to a 6 per cent. holding by the Crown Agents. That is a much lower figure than the one previously given by a Minister in this House.

The information at my disposal is that the Crown Agents hold about 6 per cent. of the equity as a routine investment. They also deal with the FNFC in the money market, as they do with many other banks and finance houses. That is the figure I have been given, and I believe it to be correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much aid has been given to Bangladesh for jute mill machinery and for projects connected with the jute industry.

Approximately £920,000 for jute mill machinery and spares.

Is the Minister aware of the basic importance of the jute industry to Bangladesh? I welcome the amount of aid already given, but will the Minister have negotiations through the specialised agencies to see what more can be done in order to re-establish what was a thriving economy and one which has done well in the last six months? Will he also, at some future date, give the House a report about what has happened to the whole of the aid to Bangladesh?

The hon. Member is correct. The jute industry is of immense importance to Bangladesh. We intend to send a jute mission to Bangladesh early next year to see how we can help the industry. Until the mission has reported I cannot say how much aid we are likely to provide, but we are prepared to give the jute industry a top priority in our aid to Bangladesh.

I, too, welcome the aid that the Minister has just announced. However, will he say whether he has applied or intends to apply for a waiver in respect of the EEC tariff on imported jute manufactured goods from Bangladesh as from 1st January next? If he does not do that, the aid that he has just announced will be cancelled out by the imposition of the tariff.

This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The EEC and India initialled an agreement on 6th November on jute and coir products, under which the EEC will reduce the common customs tariff on these goods by up to 60 per cent. up to 1975, in return for voluntary restraint on exports by India.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will establish and maintain a register within his Department of contract and specialist personnel who have worked abroad under its auspices.

The Overseas Development Administration is studying the possibility of establishing a central personnel register on a computer.

Is the Minister aware that this is not before time? Is he aware of the enormous fund of experience and expertise that this country now has at its disposal as a result of the many contract personnel and experts that we have sent to developing countries? Will he see that this has a top priority, in view of the great value of these people in our education system and within other spheres? Will this register, once established, be available to local education authorities and other bodies that need the information it may be able to provide.

The hon. Member will welcome the fact that we are studying the possibility of placing this information on the computer. Of course, the ODA appointments officers keep records of people interested in serving abroad under different disciplines, and the establishment of the register on a computer will certainly make the whole system more efficient and effective.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether this will in any way help to ensure that qualified and experienced people can be sent to the more inaccessible territories, to which, in the ordinary course of events, they might not be directed.

We are at the moment studying the possibility of establishing such a register and it would make the whole system more effective in getting experienced people to places where their help will be most effective.

Will it be possible to use the register to ensure that people who go abroad on two-year contracts can return to the kind of specialty they had before they left, thus avoiding the problem of those returning finding that they have lost their place on the promotion ladder in this country?

The hon. Member raises a valid point and we shall look into it to see whether the register which may be established can assist in this way.

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

I have no plans to do so at present. The Netherlands Foreign Minister visited London as my guest on 27th June and we, of course, meet regularly at multilateral meetings, such as that of the Council of Europe and NATO.

But should not the right hon. Gentleman go to Holland and tell the citizens of that loyal and steadfast ally how he reconciles British membership of the European Economic Community with the oil blockade Britain is carrying on against Holland?

I am not sure that the words "loyalty" and "steadfast" come very well from the hon. Gentleman. I recognise Holland as a loyal ally.

The man of Munich.

Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary seen the statement by the Chancellor of the Federal Republic, in a toast to President Pompidou in Paris two days ago, that it was the duty of all European countries to stand by Holland? Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself seriously to that proposition? Is it not the Government's duty to take the same view? Will the right hon. Gentleman comment publicly on Chancellor Brandt's statement and say whether he and the Government agree with that point of view?

We have agreed with our allies and the members of the Community, including the Dutch, about how to handle the oil problem. The matter is being considered by the political directors of the Community, and we shall return to the problem when the Foreign Ministers meet again on 4th and 5th December.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), he suggested that my hon. Friend was not loyal or steadfast. That, coming from someone who sold this country out at Munich and who is selling it out to the Arabs is not good enough. [Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has destroyed his own point of order by the nature of the language he has used.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for someone to question the loyalty of an hon. Member? As one who disagrees with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on many points, I ask you whether an hon. Member's differing from the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary can be put on the same plane as disloyalty to the country, which is a quite different matter. If it can, probably every hon. Member can be regarded as disloyal. With your long experience, Mr. Speaker, you will know that that is a not a customary thing for a Minister to say about an hon. Member, and I therefore ask you to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, despite his elevated position, to withdraw that remark.

The Chair has to try to administer the rules of order. Obviously, I deprecate very much personal suggestions, from whichever side they may come, and I deprecate strong language. I also regret sedentary interruptions. I do my best to reduce the temperature of the Chamber when I can. I have no power to order a right hon. or hon. Member to withdraw, unless in my view there has been a breach of order. I do not think that on this occasion there has been a breach of order.

I did not mean to question the loyalty to this country of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). If the hon. Gentleman interpreted what I said in that way, of course I withdraw it.