asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what most recent discussions he has had with representatives of the Syrian Government concerning the treatment of prisoners of war arising from the recent Middle East conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a further statement regarding his inquiries concerning Israeli prisoners of war in Arab hands.

The Syrian Chargé d'Affaires was called to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 12th December and was reminded of Her Majesty's Government's view that the Convention on Prisoners of War should be fully and unconditionally complied with.

Will my right hon. Friend keep up the pressure on this question and, when the opportunity arises with the Syrian authorities, will he express the Government's grave anxiety over the Syrians' apparent unwillingness to attend the conference, beginning on Friday?

We have drawn this matter to the attention of the Syrian authorities on a number of occasions. The Syrian position is that they will not release prisoners of war until Israel complies fully with the provisions of the Convention on Prisoners of War and the Protection of Civilians, and in particular allows civilians back to the villages from which they have been displaced.

Does the right hon. Gentleman refute his previous answer that a number of representations have been made, and does he confirm a statement last week by the Syrian Chargé d'Affaires that only one representation has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Syrian authorities? Will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Syrian authorities to the example of the Government of Pakistan, who repatriated prisoners of war without waiting for, or demanding, the return of territories involved in previous hostilities?

As I have said, we consider that this convention should be fully and unconditionally complied with. We have been in touch with the Syrians on a number of occasions and we continue to be in touch. I do not wish to enter into semantics with the hon. Gentleman on what constitutes representations, but we have had a number of contacts with the Syrian Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that ill-treatment of prisoners of war is abominable wherever it occurs? Is he aware that there have been fairly well documented reports in the Press recently that the Israelis have also ill-treated Syrian prisoners of war, as they have done Palestinians for a long time? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only answer for everyone is to have a quick peaceful settlement? Will he comment on the present chances of such a settlement?

We have seen a number of reports alleging atrocities and ill-treatment of prisoners of war, but we have no corroborative evidence of our own to support them. The Syrians deny that they have ill-treated prisoners of war. The question of Syria's attendance at the peace conference must be a matter for the Syrian Government. We are anxious that the conference should proceed as quickly and as effectively as possible.

In order to be even-handed will the right hon. Gentleman persist in his representations to the Israeli Government about the implementation of the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with civil populations in time of war, as Israel refuses to give any undertakings about this?

It is a Syrian allegation that a particular element of the Geneva Convention has not been complied with. We have no evidence of our own to corroborate it.

The civilian population?

Syria claims that the civilian population are not allowed back to their villages. We feel that the Geneva Convention should be complied with in all its aspects.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he receives from high commissioners in developing Commonwealth countries reports on the activities of British firms carrying on business locally; and for what purpose.

High commissioners are under no standing instruction to submit routine reports on the activities of local British firms, but they do report, at their discretion, to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Trade and Industry, where it is appropriate for the promotion or protection of British commercial interests.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that three weeks ago he told my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) that no advice had been given to British firms in Sri Lanka about wages. Surely the right hon. Gentleman recognises that one of the reasons for having high commissioners in developing countries is expressly to advise British firms in those countries on conditions of employment?

We are satisfied that British firms in Sri Lanka pay their employees wages based on rates laid down by the Government of Sri Lanka, but advice on local employment practices is offered by our commercial representatives abroad. I think this is the best and most effective way in which it can be undertaken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations between Great Britain and Rhodesia.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the House on 28th November.—[Vol. 865, c. 141.]

Will my right hon. Friend consider putting further pressure on the Smith régime to release the interned African leaders in Southern Rhodesia? Does he not think that that is a prerequisite if a satisfactory settlement is eventually to be reached?

We have always argued to the Smith régime that it is advisable that it should talk with people in Rhodesia and not detain them.

The right hon. Gentleman and the House will have noted the action taken yesterday by the United States Senate in relation to the Byrd amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman say a kind word in favour of the United States administration? Does not the action that has now been taken in the United States in reversing its previous policy on imports of chrome re-emphasise the need not merely to continue with the policy of sanctions but, if possible, to intensify it?

I echo the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. Our purpose is to ensure that sanctions are fully implemented.

Is it not a fact that those who are interned in Rhodesia are not seeking a settlement but are seeking to have armed revolution in that country and to exterminate the white population?

That must be a matter of judgment. As I have said, our belief is that Rhodesia will not be able to evolve to legal independence unless she can reach agreement between the various communities living there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his negotiations with Arab leaders and others over the oil cut-back.

We are, naturally, in continuous touch with Arab Governments about the cutback in oil supplies. The exchanges have resulted in assurances of supplies from some countries. We have also drawn Arab attention to the detrimental effects of the oil cutback on world economies, and pointed out that these effects would not be in the interests of our Arab friends.

I welcome that reply, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the use of the oil weapon for political purposes outside the ambit of the Middle East war creates a very dangerous precedent and must be resisted?

Yes, Sir. We think that raw materials should not be used as weapons in war. This could spread to other materials.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now an urgent and pressing need for Israel to withdraw from occupied Arab territories, in line with repeated United Nations decisions, in order that oil supplies may be fully restored to the West?

I would not connect the two, and never have done. I would say that on its merits the political settlement in the Middle East has to include Israeli withdrawal and, complementary to that, security arrangements for Israel's frontiers and those of her neighbours. I would not connect the political settlement with oil. I have made it clear that our policy had nothing to do with the oil supplies but, on its merits, was that a political settlement should be brought into being.

What further joint representations have been made by leaders of the European Community countries to the Arab leaders?

We published a declaration of the Community on 6th November. In Copenhagen we were able to see representatives of the Arab countries and we impressed on them that they should not try to divide the European Community on these matters. We also impressed on them the danger of pursuing their present policy too far, because it could have such wide repercussions on world trade.

But was not all that diplomatic activity frustrated by the attitude of the multi-national companies? Is it not about time the Foreign Office considered opening diplomatic relations with multi-national companies rather than just with the Arab countries?

I believe that if the hon. Gentleman thinks about the matter he will feel that, by and large, the activities of the international oil companies have a good deal to be said for them. How long the present patterns of the international oil companies will last, we do not know. In the short term, the essential thing is to get the maximum supplies into Europe. In the longer term, relationships between producers and consumers can be worked out, and I hope that they will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Dutch Government on the oil shortage.

At the summit meeting in Copenhagen on 14th and 15th December I had full discussions of the energy problems with my Dutch and other Community colleagues.

In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), the right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "a change in the pattern of the international companies". Did he discuss that with the Dutch? What did he mean by that phrase?

We were talking about the supply of oil through the international companies, and I was asking the hon. Gentleman to look at the benefits that flow from the present practice of the international oil companies. That may be changed at some future date, but it has not changed yet.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the summit meeting and the EEC meeting which he attended, a concerted view is being taken by the EEC countries concerning the shortage of energy in Europe?

There is a Question on the Order Paper which deals with the summit meeting and the meeting of the EEC, and I shall come to it later.

The Foreign Secretary knows that the summit communiqué referred to immediate and effective action in the short term by the Community to meet the oil shortage problem. Does that immediate and effective short-term action include a pledge to the Dutch on oil sharing?

No, Sir. That has never been talked about either bilaterally with the Dutch or in the EEC. No one—including the Dutch—has talked about oil sharing. We have talked about what will happen, which is that the Commission will collect information from the members of the Community about the situations in the various Community countries, which vary enormously. We shall have this report by 15th January and we shall then be able to judge the situation. Neither the Dutch nor any other members of the Community have talked about oil sharing as such.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks he had in Moscow with the Soviet leaders, with particular reference to removing the imbalance in trade between the United Kingdom and USSR.

My visit to the Soviet Union marked a considerable advance in Anglo-Soviet relations. Our talks, which were cordial throughout, among many other subjects covered the imbalance of trade and the disparity of Western and Warsaw Pact forces, especially in Central Europe. We hope to sign a long-term economic co-operation agreement next year. As far as force levels are concerned, there are still important differences between the two sides at the Vienna talks, but we agreed to persevere in the search for a solution.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does not he agree that there has been an unnecessary imbalance of trade between the USSR and the United Kingdom for a number of years? As we currently sell less than £100 million worth of our goods and services to the USSR each year and it sells over £200 million worth of goods to us, is not it about time this gap was narrowed? In view of the balance of payments deficit, is it not right to say that we should import less from the USSR?

I do not think that we want to try to be restrictive. We want to increase the trade between out two countries. But I made it very clear, of course, that the imbalance should be corrected, and the Russians agreed to try to do that. A number of quite large contracts are now being considered, and they could make a considerable difference to the picture if they are awarded.

Is the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary aware that our trade deficit with the Soviet Union is about one-tenth of our deficit with the EEC?

That may be so, but I have never thought that statistics necessarily prove very much.

Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Soviet leaders that Anglo-Soviet relations would be greatly improved by the cessation of the supply of Soviet arms to the IRA in Ulster?

Yes, Sir. I have made that point to the Soviet Union before. I think that it is not necessary to make it again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now recognise the State of Guinea Bissau, formerly Portuguese Guinea.

No, Sir. It does not meet our criteria for recognition, which have been consistently applied by successive British Governments.

Is it not a fact that 68 countries have now recognised the new State and that at the United Nations General Assembly only seven voted against? Is it not also a fact that the liberation Government controls two-thirds of the territory in that country?

I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman states as fact is correct. We believe that the PAIGC falls far short of controlling the major part of Portuguese Guinea, in spite of its claims to do so, nor do we believe that it commands anything like the obedience of the mass of the public. We voted against the United Nations resolution because we cannot accept that a Government can be guilty of illegal occupation of, and acts of aggression against, a territory over which they are sovereign in international law.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in 1962 I first decided to visit Portuguese Guinea because of claims that the revolution controlled two-thirds of the territory, and it is now 1973? It is a small territory, which the Portuguese could not possibly hold without the consent of the people. They have that consent, because the people are much freer and more prosperous in Guinea Bissau than in Guinea Conakry.

I believe that my hon. Friend is right in his description of the actual physical control in Portuguese Guinea. Our information is that, apart from the sparsely populated area of the Madina Boé region, the Portuguese control the greater part of the territory, as well as the towns and the means of communication.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he has taken at the United Nations designed to maintain peace in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present Middle East situation, so far as British interests are concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Middle East so far as British interests are concerned.

We greatly welcome the prospect of the opening of the peace conference in Geneva. We hope that this will lead to early and rapid progress towards an overall settlement of the Middle East problem based on the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 242. We remain ready to help in any way we can in the peace-making and peace-keeping processes.

Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to suggest that the United Nations should rent for a long term Sinai, parts of the Negev and the Golan Heights, to act as an international buffer zone between the combatants, to be policed by an individually recruited permanent peace-keeping force?

The idea of renting by the United Nations is a new one, but all ideas on this matter are welcome. That there has to be a buffer zone and that it has to be internationally policed, I have no doubt at all.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the end of last week it was widely reported in the European Press that the Arab Foreign Ministers visiting Copenhagen were about to demand that the EEC should terminate its trade agreements with Israel? Were any such demands made and, in any event, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake not to surrender to any such demands if they are made in future?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is, "No". This question was not raised by the Arab representatives, it is Europe, and Europe alone, that determines its trade relations.

Has my right hon. Friend received any communication from the Israeli Government that guaranteed demilitarised zones are now looked upon with more favour? Is it the Government's intention to take part in a peacekeeping force, if so invited?

We have had no communication from the Israeli Government to suggest that they favour demilitarised zones, although it is obvious that they are giving the matter serious consideration. How the peace-keeping force is formed will be a matter for the Security Council and the Secretary-General. We are certainly willing to take part.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the welter of propaganda, the basic essentials for the establishment of peace in the Middle East, in the interests of the Palestinians, the Israelis, Britain and the world, are for Israel to withdraw to her boundaries and to let the Arabs have back their lands, and for Israel, created by the United Nations, to be given an absolute guarantee? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problems afflicting Israeli prisoners of war in Syria and other matters can be dealt with if the basic assumptions are agreed? Will he consider going to the United Nations to put forward this proposal?

If necessary, I would go to the United Nations, but the peace conference will open in Geneva on Friday. The combatants will be there, with, I think, the exception of Syria, although I hope not. If we can help in any way we shall. If it were necessary for me to go to the United Nations I would do so. There are two elements that are essential to the success of the conference. The first, as the hon. Gentleman said, is withdrawal. The second—and equally important—is security for Israel and her Arab neighbours. Let us not leave out the Arab neighbours.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no question of the Government's conniving in any settlement that would lead to Israel's being ringed round by hostile neighbours? Does he also agree that our interpretation of the resolution in question is "territories" and not" the territories"?

The details of the settlement of boundaries must be left to the peace conference. Nobody from outside can settle those. I think it is wiser not to put any particular interpretation on the resolution at this moment.

Whilst we can all put forward our proposals for a solution, would it not be better to direct our efforts to getting the two sides together to discuss directly their own affairs and their relationships with each other, rather than propounding our own solutions? In view of the importance of the conference to our own interests, especially oil, what has the Foreign Secretary done to ensure that we are adequately represented—if not at the conference, at least in the environs of Geneva?

I am not sure that there is any point in sitting outside the room. We shall get communications from all the parties concerned which will tell us how the conference is going on. The organisation of the conference at the start will be that the combatants will meet, the Russians and the Americans will be the co-chairmen and the rest of us will hold ourselves in reserve to help where help is necessary. We are in a position to do that as a permanent member of the Security Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his answer? Although no one need be physically present in the room, would not it be advantageous to Britain to have some high-level representation on the spot, available for consultation, to put our point of view, to see immediately what issues are coming up, and help to resolve them?

I will consider what is necessary. We have a very competent ambassador in Switzerland, who could, if necessary, do this job. I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's study of the possibilities of ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and publish a list of the countries which have now ratified the covenant.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of States which have now ratified the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights.

On the question of our study of the possibility of ratifying the covenants, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks) on 14th December.—[Vol. 866, c. 212–3.] As at 1st December, 23 States have now ratified the covenants. I shall, with permission, circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I appreciate the Government's difficulties, but have not they shown extreme tardiness, in direct contrast to the speed with which they recognised reactionary régimes like those in Chile, Greece and one or two other places which I shall not name? Is it not time that the decision of 1966 received more consideration from the Government than has been given to it?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that we are very keen to press on with this, but the lawyers have to give careful consideration to all the different legal positions that prevail in some countries for which we still have responsibility.

Bearing in mind the Government's obvious lack of enthusiasm for the covenant, the fact that they permitted the 25th anniversary of the universal declaration to pass entirely without comment, and that even when they did something right and renewed the right of individual petition under the European declaration they announced the matter stealthily in reply to a Written Question, what is it about human rights that the Government find so unattractive?

I am not prepared to accept the assumption in the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. We see nothing unattractive about it. It is simply that we do not wish to put our final ratifying signature to it until the lawyers can assure us that we can implement and carry out what we put our name to.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent discussions regarding energy policy with the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent discussions in Copenhagen about the formulation of a European energy policy.

Hon. Members will have seen the statement issued by the Copenhagen summit meeting on 15th December, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. The Council of Ministers has agreed to meet again by 7th January. At that meeting we hope to take decisions to put into effect the provisions of the summit communiqué regarding energy policy. Meanwhile, on a voluntary basis we shall be making available to the Commission the necessary information about our own supplies to enable it to report by 15th January.

Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that one of the mysterious factors about the situation is that the international oil companies seem to be embarking upon a procedure of sharing the crude oil coming into Europe, and that this is being done without the activation of the OECD's oil-sharing organisation which was set up in 1967? Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate the attitude of Her Majesty's Government towards the procedures adopted by the international oil companies? Do they agree with the method of sharing?

The obligations of Her Majesty's Government are to see to it that nothing infringes our treaty arrangements with Europe or with other parts of the world in relation to the distribution of oil. Nothing has done so, and we have taken no action that would interfere with the ordinary supply and distribution of oil.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is the possibility of forging a relationship of great potential mutual benefit between Western Europe and the Arab oil-producing nations, especially if, like our good friends the French, we understand the importance of technical and industrial assistance for the Arab nations?

There is a very large question here, which is of enormous importance to relations between the consumers and the producers. It involves much more than the production and distribution of oil. It involves investment, technology, and so on. This was raised not only in the European Community but very pertinently by Dr. Kissinger in his speech to the Pilgrims not very long ago. I think that the proper forum in which to discuss this is the OECD, which has the advantage of including not only America and Japan but Canada, which will be a very important country in the new era of oil production.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that one of the decisions at Copenhagen, if not the major one, was the need to link questions of economic union with energy policy and regional policy? Will he give a categorical assurance, anyhow, that in no circumstances will we share our North Sea resources with anyone else unless and until we get a satisfactory regional policy, and that if we get neither we shall think of withdrawal from the EEC altogether, or at least of withholding our payments to the common agricultural policy?

The matter of the full production and distribution of North Sea oil is under our complete control. At the European Community meeting yesterday I said that I thought it desirable that matters of economic and monetary union and matters of regional policy and energy should all be settled at the same meeting. I hope that we shall be able to do this on 7th January.

May I take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend for standing out for the regions at the recent meeting? Is he aware how grateful we are, at any rate in the region where I live and which I represent, and that we hope that he will have great success in getting his own way for us?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is on to a question which certainly ought not to arouse any ribaldry on the Opposition benches. It is manifestly important for Britain, in her relations with the Community, to have a regional policy of substance. On that, yesterday, I insisted. I hope that on 7th January the Community will agree that this is right.

Is not it clear that the pretence is at last showing through, that it is impossible to get an agreed European policy on such a combination as oil, monetary union, the balance of payments and political union, and that as long as the Foreign Secretary pretends to us that he hopes to get this early in January, so long will British policy itself be paralysed? Is not it time that the right hon. Gentleman removed some of these problems from the ambit of the European Community and transferred them to the OECD and that we had a real attempt to look at these problems though our national eyes while, as far as we can, combining with our neighbours in our common interest?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is too pessimistic. Of course, we shall not solve the problems of economic and monetary union or energy on 7th January. But at least we can make progress towards a European view on these matters. However, regional policy is essential to this country, and it must be adequate. The right hon. Gentleman is right, of course, when he says that we cannot solve these matters. Taking the world view, obviously the OECD is the right place in which to consider the energy problem, but we can make progress with the European Community, and I hope that we can do so on 7th January.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Common Market

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a special meeting of the EEC Council before 31st December 1973.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will be making a statement tomorrow on recent meetings of the Council of Ministers.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that these meetings in Europe in the last few days have really been a squalid and childish example of so-called European unity by our so-called European partners? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will separate the energy problem, which is extremely serious, from the other problem of begging a few more crumbs of regional aid from the European Community, and that if we cannot make progress on energy in the European Community he will then accept Dr. Kissinger's offer in his speech to the Pilgrims that we, as an independent country, should join his European energy action group? Finally, may I take this opportunity to commend the honesty of the senior British official who referred to the meetings as "Eurocrap"?

It is clear that my hon. Friend has read a particular headline in The Guardian. However, it must be for Ministers to use this kind of language if it is used at all.

Since the first year of British membership of the EEC has been an unmitigated economic disaster, will the Foreign Secretary now take action, under Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty of Rome and Article 135 of the Treaty of Accession, to seek an urgent meeting with his colleagues to avoid the imposition of any further Common Market burdens on the British people?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's definition of our membership as an "unmitigated economic disaster". We all recognised that we had to pay a lot in the early years, but we also calculated the great industrial advantages which there would be in later years.

Will my right hon. Friend press even more forcefully to ensure that the oil question is taken out of the hands of the Common Market Ministers, who seem to be incapable of dealing with it—except to humiliate themselves in public in front of some Arab sheikhs in Copenhagen? Could not this matter be taken out of Ministers' hands to prevent the sort of event that occurred yesterday—namely, this question being used as a bargaining counter to veto action on regional aid? Surely the quicker this question can be taken away from the Ministers and put to the OECD the better we all shall be.

Yes, there could be great advantage to the European Community in its relations with the Arab producers. Europe has a lot to supply, and in matters of technology and investment we should investigate the situation with the Arab producers. The meeting between the Community and the Arabs in Copenhagen was a quite productive one. This matter must be taken further and, for the reasons I have given earlier, I believe that we must include Japan and the United States if we are to reach a sensible solution to the long-term world problem. But do not let us discount Europe's influence in these matters.

Since the Foreign Secretary is now sharing a glimmer of realism about the relative importance of Europe in this connection, will he comment on the failure of the regional fund yesterday? Was it not the Government's hope and expectation that our payments to the CAP would be offset by a large receipt from the regional fund? If he has not achieved that, will he consider suspending our payments under the CAP and—even more widely, in view of the continual process of unrelieved failure—will he embark on an entirely new course for co-operation within Europe through an industrial free trade area?

I hope that we can work towards a situation—and this is the plan—under which, after the transitional period, Europe will be a free trade area.

Will my right hon. Friend be not deterred by this short-sighted ribaldry from pursuing with determination his objective of achieving ultimate European unity, which can only be for the benefit of all our people?

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. The House must face some facts. Europe is immensely powerful—we conduct 41 per cent. of world trade, and that is not a negligible amount. We also have a powerful political influence, so long as we act together. This is immensely important. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a balance sheet to be struck, but on the political side we have been very successful up to the present. Things are more difficult on the economic side, but we must not give up hope and must work towards a common aim.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the nations have got completely bogged down right at the start and that any question of ultimate European unity is complete nonsense? Would it not be best if we renegotiated immediately, or pulled out?

No, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend regard as ribaldry the reported remarks of the Irish Foreign Secretary to the effect that if there were no regional fund the continued British membership of the EEC would be called into question? Will he also say whether Britain formally used the veto yesterday at the Foreign Ministers' meeting.

No, Sir. There is no need to use a veto when a discussion is continuing and when, as I hope, every member of the Community desires to reach a conclusion on 7th January which will produce a regional fund. The Irish Foreign Minister did not make that re mark in my hearing; I have read it only in a newspaper report.

Will the Foreign Secretary treat the advice given by little Scotlanders and little Englanders with the contempt it deserves? Will he bear in mind that the long-term interest of Britain—Scotland included—ties up intimately with the rest of Western Europe? Will he say that he and his Ministers will take no part in this attitude when discussing questions that affect us all so intimately?

I find myself in close sympathy with the hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson). I have always argued very strongly against Scotland being a separate unit, because our strength lies in the United Kingdom. In these modern days the strength of the United Kingdom lies in a united Europe which can exercise equal influence on the United States, the Soviet Union, China and, indeed, the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what grounds Her Majesty's Government recognised the new military junta in Greece on 4th December 1973.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communication he had with the latest military junta in Greece before recognising it on 4th December 1973; and whether he will make a statement.

We have recognised the new Government in Greece because they fulfil our normal criteria for recognition, which are well known. We had no communication with the Government before we recognised them on 4th December.

Is it not a fact that the Government recognised the previous colonels' régime in Greece after a rigged plebiscite following the illegal deposition of King Constantine, and that not even a plebiscite has taken place this time? How many other successor régimes of colonels and secret police and the like will be allowed to follow each other in Greece before we follow the lead given by the Danes and other friends of ours in Europe and say firmly to the Greek colonels that they have no part in free European institutions, including NATO, until democracy is restored in Greece?

The hon. Gentleman will realise that we follow normal previous practice regarding recognition of régimes in Greece. In fact, in the original coup in April 1967 normal business was interrupted by the Labour Government, who resumed relations after six days. As for the EEC, I understand that most of our partners maintain that they recognise States and not, as we do, Governments. They simply continue to carry on normal diplomatic relations with the Greeks.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that nobody outside his Department believes in the fiction that diplomatic recognition does not confer approval? Consequently, does not diplomatic recognition help to reinforce and strengthen revolutionary Governments, and is it not time the Foreign Office devised a more up-to-date doctrine?

The policy of recognition which this country follows is based on an assessment of the facts. Neither the time it takes us to assess a situation nor our recognition of a Government implies moral or political approval, or the reverse. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of that fact.

Why are the Government so coy about condemning dictatorship in a police State in the West? On the question of Greece remaining a member of NATO, was not NATO brought into existence as a collective form of defence of freedom and democracy? Do not we have a collective responsibility to preserve those values within the Western Community as well as seeking to preserve Western unity against external threats?

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of what took place at the ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 10th and 12th December. The British Government share the hopes expressed at the Council meeting that the Greek Government will prepare the way for a return to democracy. We see no advantage in discussing in NATO the internal affairs of Greece. It does not help the cohesion of the alliance and is not likely to accelerate progress towards democracy in Greece.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Minister for Overseas Development last paid an official visit to Ethiopia, Somalia and the Sudan, respectively.

I have not been able to visit these countries since June 1970.

Bearing in mind that English is widely spoken throughout these territories, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that this is one of the most delicate and sensitive parts of Africa, particularly if and when the Suez Canal is opened? Will he tell the House what aid, particularly educational, is being given? May I ask whether, when he is zigzagging about between Zambia and Egypt, he will bend his steps, some time, to visit Mogadishu, where I am sure the old Somaliland connection is still present and he will receive a warm welcome?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving an impetus to my wish to visit two of the countries that he has mentioned. I have no plans to visit Somalia at present but I hope that it may be possible to visit the Sudan and Ethiopia.

Does the reported official Government-sponsored visit of a Punch and Judy show to Arab States come under my right hon. Friend's Department?

I am afraid not.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the information about the salary of the former Director of Finance of the Crown Agents and his proposed remuneration as joint deputy chairman of First National Finance Corporation that was before him when he gave his approval for the director to take up the appointment immediately on resignation as a member of the staff of the Crown Agents in accordance with the procedures set out in Estacode section K.

Mr. Challis's salary at the Crown Agents was £8,675 a year. I had no information about his prospective salary in private employment.

Will the Minister acknowledge that he has taken personal responsibility for allowing this switch to take place? If the gentleman in question had been a civil servant, does he, with hindsight, consider that it was unwise of him to do so, since the Director of Finance of the Crown Agents had been in that position over many years, placing funds amounting to millions of pounds with First National Finance Corporation before taking up a position as deputy chairman on the next day? With hindsight, does the Minister agree that it was an undesirable move to allow?

No, Sir. Hindsight has made no difference to my view. I was consulted about this matter before I expressed my view. I saw no reason to disapprove. Therefore, I share the responsibility for that decision.

Share?

Yes—share. The suggestion was made to me by the Crown Agent and I saw no reason to disapprove of his judgment. Having reflected on this matter, if that proposition were put to me now, I should take the same view as I took then.

The Minister has stated that he has no knowledge of the present salary of this gentleman as joint deputy chairman of First National Finance Corporation. Does that mean that when he decided to give his permission for this appointment he did not think that the salary that that gentleman would get in his new position was relevant to the matters that he had to weigh in making that choice?

It means that I felt that it was quite wrong, when I was consulted by the Crown Agent on this matter, to base my decision in any way on a comparison of salaries. The rules in Estacode, to which I have referred, do not require any knowledge of a future salary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further aid Her Majesty's Government will give to developing countries to meet their problems arising from the introduction of the EEC scheme of generalised preferences on 1st January 1974.

I do not expect that our alignment to the Community's Generalised Preference Scheme will cause any major problems. Our bilateral aid is not primarily intended to compensate countries for difficulties arising from world trading conditions, but we always consider a country's overall economic situation when planning our aid programme.

Will the Minister explain why he thinks that the overall position for certain countries, particularly ex-Commonwealth countries, will not be worsened? Is it not a fact that the draft regulations for the new European GPS will place certain countries, particularly those in Asia, at a disadvantage compared with their present position in the Commonwealth? Will he take steps to balance the disadvantages that they will thus suffer?

The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the Community's declaration of intent regarding the countries to which he has referred. The Community has every intention of honouring the declaration of intent that it made.

Will there not be a gap in the early part of 1974 with particular reference to Hong Kong, whose exports of leather goods and textiles to this country will be hampered by coming under the Community's generalised preference scheme?

We have no significant aid programme for Hong Kong, although there is a certain aid flow. Therefore, the consequences to which my right hon. Friend has directed attention do not apply in Hong Kong.

We know that the Government are negotiating in the EEC on a number of matters concerning the developing countries, and we understand that they are seeking to negotiate rather more aid provision from the EEC to the Asian countries which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) said, will suffer greatly from the new generalised preference scheme. Is the Government's refusal to accept the official aid target of 0–7 per cent.—unlike the other countries of the EEC—proving a considerable and serious barrier to making progress with the negotiating objective that the Government have in mind?

No. As I have pointed out on many occasions, the performance of individual Governments is far more important than any commitment they may make to a target, particularly if that commitment is made without any dale attached to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next make an official visit to the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his discussions with the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

Both at the NATO meeting and subsequently in London I had the opportunity of long discussions with Dr. Kissinger over a wide range of topics. As the House understands, the substance of these discussions must remain confidential, but they were very useful to us both and we found ourselves in wide agreement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Atlantic Alliance is facing one of its most serious crises in terms of the relationship between the United States of America and Western Europe? Should it not be an important task of the British Government, in particular during any further diplomatic encounters that may take place in the United States on the occasion of a visit by my right hon. Friend, to underline to the American administration, and perhaps to the American people as a whole, the community of interest that binds together the United States of America and Western Europe against a threat to our common defence?

Yes, Sir. I think that what was called the crisis in NATO was largely resolved by Dr. Kissinger's presence at the Council meeting a week or so ago.

When the Foreign Secretary eventually visits the United States will he remember what he said a few minutes ago about the importance of Canada, and ensure that the Canadian Government are kept closely in touch with any discussions concerning Atlantic defence?

This is a necessary matter of which to remind people.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that referring Dr. Kissinger's enormously important initiative on energy co-operation to a committee of the OECD seems psychologically to be an inadequate response? How soon will the OECD discuss this important initiative, and when can we expect some action?

We are in touch with Dr. Kissinger and the other members of the OECD on this matter. My hon. Friend mentioned referring this matter to a committee of the OECD. He should remember that the OECD can meet at what Dr. Kissinger, called "the level of prestigious persons" whenever necessary.

When the Foreign Secretary next visits the United States, will he discuss with the Americans the matters likely to be raised at the Law of the Sea Conference in Caracas? Will he assure the House that preparations in his Department are now well under way to ensure the best possible presentation of British interests, particularly in regard to fishery limits?

Yes, Sir.

May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend in advance to the report of the Sub-Committee on Defence and External Affairs of the Expenditure Committee, which draws particular attention to the lack of provision in our embassy in Washington for liaison with members of Congress?

I hope that there is no lack of close relationship between our embassy and the members of the United States Congress. I should have thought that Lord Cromer would be the last person who would have allowed that to develop. But I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.