asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve the economic development of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

A development plan for the period 1973–74 to 1977–78 has been approved by the Falkland Islands Govment. Over half the funds required for the plan's implementation will be met from United Kingdom development aid.

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her first appearance at the Box at Question Time. Will she keep in mind the question of a fuel monopoly given to the Argentine State oil company, which appears to be commercially unnecessary and politically potentially undesirable, and which, if persisted with, is likely to frighten away British capital which might wish to go there privately?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks. I shall bear his comments in mind should the situation arise.

Does not the hon. Lady agree that one way of helping the economic development of the Falkland Islands would be to improve communications there? What progress is being made on the construction of the permanent airstrip on the Falkland Islands?

Tenders are now being examined by the consultants. The airfield has been designed to the specifications required to enable aircraft to fly to other destinations in Latin America, besides Argentine airfields.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's future relationship with the Government of the Republic of South Africa.

I refer my hon. Friend to my speech in the House on 19th March about South Africa.—[Vol. 870, c. 872–3.]

I have read that speech. Will my right hon. Friend do his best to ensure that his staff in South Africa do their best to maintain contact with all strands of opinion, including bodies such as the Christian Institute and the National Union of South African Students? Will he do his best also to stress to everybody in this country, particularly the supporters of the proposed British Lions' tour, that the best way in which they can show their disapproval of apartheid and similar policies is to stop such tours taking place?

As regards the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, in view of our fundamental opposition to apartheid and our intention to play our full part in the international community in seeking to end discrimination throughout southern Africa, I feel that it would be right for Her Majesty's representative there, and all others, to keep closely in touch with all strands of opinion in southern Africa.

Whatever our personal opinions of the internal affairs of South Africa, will the Minister continue to bear in mind the important strategic position of South Africa and its importance as a trade partner—I believe our fourth best?

Yes, Sir. I said in my speech originally that we often have to do business with people whose views we do not share and, indeed, may bitterly oppose.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will recall Her Majesty's Ambassador in Santiago, Chile.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on future relations with the Chilean military junta.

Chile has a strong tradition of democratic government, and our policy towards the military junta will be governed by our desire to see democracy restored and human rights fully respected there. To this end, we shall take part in any future representations to be made by the United Nations on human rights in Chile, and our ambassador has been instructed to represent strongly to the military junta our concern at the treatment of prisoners. Aid will be suspended, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development will announce details in reply to a later Question. A projected naval training exercise has been cancelled. Existing contracts are being urgently reviewed, but we shall not grant new export licences for arms. I am glad to inform the House that the Home Secretary will consider applications from Chilean refugees sympathetically.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that exhaustive statement. There was great disquiet on this side of the House about the behaviour of our accredited representatives in Santiago at the time of the coup and afterwards, particularly in their attitude towards refugees from the junta. Will my right hon. Friend say a further word about the stopping of all arms assistance to the junta? Has that been stopped from the date of the General Election onwards?

As for the attitude of our ambassador, I am sure that he was carrying out the instructions of the administration at the time. It was proper that he should do so. New instructions have now been sent to him.

If we are to trade discourtesies with countries of whose internal régimes we disapprove—a policy that can be all too easily counter-productive—will the Foreign Secretary undertake to act similarly towards Left-wing as well as Right-wing dictatorships?

There has never been any hesitation on the part of the Labour Party about making clear where we stood in relation to matters of human rights, no matter what Government were involved. My hon. Friends and I have made personal representations to ambassadors of countries where we thought that human rights were being suppressed, irrespective of the nature of the régime.

Will my right hon. Friend refute the report that appeared in the Sunday Telegraph to the effect that warships now being constructed will be supplied?

I cannot give a clear undertaking on existing contracts, as I have said, because that matter is being reviewed. There are industrial and commercial considerations that have to be and will be taken into account. Contracts are involved here, but what I say now, for the third time, is that no new export licences will be granted.

Has the right hon. Gentleman analysed the effects on employment in Chile of cutting back aid, particularly in the technical branch, and what the effect of employment in British shipyards will be if there are no future contracts?

The first consideration will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development when she answers a later Question. The second consideration is, of course, always in our minds and must be one of the matters taken into account.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development whether she will stop the supply of overseas aid to Chile.

Yes, Sir. There will be no new aid to Chile and I am stopping all present aid except that concerned with the support of Chilean students and graduates coming to Britain, which I am prepared to extend. I am allowing the completion of one or two minor technical assistance projects.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that her reply will give great satisfaction to the House, in view of the fact that the present Chilean Government, if it can be so called, indulge in the murder of their opponents on a scale unknown of any Government since that of Stalin?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is also my understanding of the situation in Chile.

The Minister will remember that when in opposition she said not only that when she got into office she would take immediate steps to stop aid to Chile but that she would bring effective pressure on the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to stop all international aid to Chile. Will the right hon. Lady give an account of the pressures which she has so far exerted?

I fear not. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues in Europe but I am afraid I cannot reveal the contents of those.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is no question of the delivery of the naval frigates currently on order to Chile in the near future?

On that point I must refer my hon. Friend to the earlier answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that, small as the British programme was in Chile, her decision is not only illogical but will do great damage to a country whose needs are very great? Will she finally confirm that she has now totally abandoned the view that she argued with passion when in opposition—that political considerations should be subordinate to development needs?

On the latter point, if the right hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory correctly he will find that I argued somewhat differently. On his main point, as he will know, the three main areas of technical assistance in Chile were in industrial training, where in the whole of industry the trade unions have been suppressed and trade unionists have been imprisoned, persecuted and killed; in agriculture, where the present military régime is totally reversing the programme of land reform to which our aid is directed; and, thirdly, in education, where most of the educational institutions are now in the hands of generals, departments have been closed and there has been suppression and persecution of people engaged in education.

I congratulate my right hon Friend and my other right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office on the approach that they have taken to refugees from, armaments to, and aid to the Fascist junta in Chile. In her current policy my right hon. Friend has the endorsement of a large proportion of the anti-Fascist world. Would it not have been illogical for my right hon. Friend to give aid to Chile which would have provided the generals with resources to buy armaments to suppress their people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement of the policy. In Britain, as in Chile, there are two versions of the facts. I fear that most right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition have completely accepted the propaganda version of the facts put out by the military régime.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that we are all very understanding of the fact that she has to console the left wing of her party for the minority Government's inability to fulfil a truly Socialist manifesto?

The right hon. Gentleman should look back at the history of the Labour Party's reactions to the events in Chile from the moment at which they occurred.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on re- negotiating the terms of entry to the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make arrangements for the fundamental review of British membership of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the stage reached in his preparation for the renegotiation of the EEC Treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards renegotiating the terms of the Treaty of Rome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the arrangements for renegotiating the terms of entry into the EEC.

As renegotiation, it successful, will fundamentally alter the whole concept of the Common Market, or, if renegotiation is unsuccessful and the question is put for referendum, it will almost certainly mean that we shall withdraw, will the Government now begin to consider the creation of a wider free trade area?

The first two parts of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question are hypothetical. I do not wish to be drawn into that territory yet. As to the creation of wider areas, we have always argued that we need the widest area for trade and, indeed, that many of these monetary and trade questions can be solved satisfactorily for all countries only on a world-wide basis.

Will my right hon. Friend find a new job for Mr. George Thomson, whose undoubted talents could be more usefully employed this side of the Channel than in Brussels, where he appears to be sabotaging my right hon. Friend's—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—suggestions.

There does not seem to be complete unanimity about the whole of my hon. Friend's question, but I understand that there is unanimity on what he said about Mr. George Thomson's merits. I should like to see his merits deployed in any field that would serve best.

Is it not already clear that there is ample scope for continuing the last Government's programme for reshaping the Community from within? Will not the right hon. Gentleman now acknowledge that Labour's talk of renegotiating terms of entry has been phoney and will not impress either the British public or our fellow members of the Community?

I am not sure which leg the hon. Gentleman is trying to stand on. Is it possible to renegotiate or is it not?

While the Foreign Secretary is mobilising all possible influence to improve the terms of entry into the Common Market, is it logical for him to prevent his supporters from going to the European Parliament to support him on this matter?

I have nothing to add to what the Lord President said on that subject in the recent debate.

The Government gave the impression in the foreign affairs debate last week that, pending the outcome of the renegotiation, no new commitments would be undertaken vis-à-vis the other eight members of the Community. Does that mean that the Government do not propose to try to bring to a conclusion the negotiations on the regional development fund, which were already far advanced under the previous administration and which, if concluded, would bring this country great benefits?

We shall certainly need to reconsider that and other questions to see how far it is necessary to increase the size of the Community budget as an offset to an extremely large agricultural expenditure by this country, or how far it would be more sensible to reduce the size of the total budget and thereby reduce the size of any regional fund. These considerations have obviously to be taken into account in our negotiating approach.

In the fundamental renegotiations, will the right hon. Gentleman be seeking to restore the full powers of this Parliament over all Community enactments, including, particularly, Commission regulations, with which the Foster Committee did not deal specifically?

In principle, yes. The method I am not clear about, but I think that what has been clear from the attitude of the Labour Party, both in Opposition and in Government, is that we wish this House to be in a position to give the final answer.

While conducting these negotiations, will my right hon. Friend also have talks with countries such as New Zealand, Australia and Canada, in order to resume the previous close economic relations with those countries?

With pleasure. Mr. Walding, the New Zealand Deputy Prime Minister, has already discussed these matters with Ministers here.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a much easier question? In the renegotiation, is there any exclusive responsibililty, either by staff or subject matter, for Scottish interests—agriculture, fishing, energy, and so on?

It is being undertaken on a United Kingdom basis, but representing, as I do, one of the—shall I say?—"Trinity" inside Great Britain, I shall make absolutely certain that our interests, whichever side of the border they may happen to be, are fully looked after.

Given the response that the Foreign Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), do I gather from his approach that the fundamental renegotiations are not concerned solely with the financial terms negotiated by the previous Government but go to the very heart of the nature of the Community? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore make clear whether he is in favour of our membership of the Community as it is in principle?

I do not think that I want to go any further than the Labour Party manifesto, which I recommend the hon. Government to study.

Will the Foreign Secretary have talks with our EFTA partners in order to learn from them how, without seeking Community membership, they got better agreements in many areas than we did with membership?

If there had been a Labour Government three years ago, perhaps that would have been an appropriate question, but we are now part of the Community and it is important to observe how deeply embedded the institutions have become since we joined. Therefore, I think that it is better that we should start by seeing how we are to renegotiate—which was the basis of our agreement inside the party and at our own conference—than that we should try to start from the outside.

Will the Foreign Secretary say something in this context about his recent visit to Bonn? Did he reiterate the view he expressed in his speech last week—that he was broadly in agreement with the objectives of European unity? In particular, did he raise the question of new negotiations in the sphere not only of regional policy but of social, industrial and aid policy?

Yes, Sir, we covered the whole field. I had very cordial conversations with both Chancellor Brandt and Herr Walter Scheel. We did not agree on everything, which was hardly surprising, but I think that they understood the reasons for our approach on many of these matters, and I hope to have further conversations with others in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Com- monwealth Affairs if, during the period of renegotiating the terms of entry into the EEC he will also put forward proposals for strengthening the democratic institutions of the Community.

The need for greater democratic control over the work of the Community will be considered in the light of the results attained in the renegotiation of the terms of entry.

May I ask my right hon. Friend again to give his reasons for insisting that the case for lower farm prices, a better regional policy, a smaller British contribution to the budget, and so on, should be put in the European Parliament only by Opposition Members of Parliament? Why does not he allow his own supporters, who can put the case a lot better, to go as well?

I would not differ from the view expressed in the last part of that supplementary question, but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made the position clear, and that is the position of the Government.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that in the last 15 months a number of proposals have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk) and sympathetically received, and particularly by Mr. Rafton Pounder, about budgetary control, which have largely been adopted and will come into effect next year?

I am very glad to hear that.

Will my right hon. Friend correct my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Sir D. Dodds-Parker) by pointing out that we are not represented by Members of Parliament? They are men some of whom have either voluntarily decided not to stand for Parliament, or who were defeated at the polls. Is it not absolutely anti-democratic for people to be there—allegedly in Parliament—receiving tax-free fees, although they do not want to stand as Members of Parliament?

As the institutions of the Community work on a somewhat paradoxical basis, in that the primarily legislative function is vested in a mainly executive body, to wit, the Council of Ministers, will the right hon. Gentleman give his powerful support to the adoption of the suggestion—which I made more than once last year—that the legislative processes of the Council of Ministers be as far as possible conducted in public, as a contribution to the improvement to the democratic process?

I think that is a very interesting suggestion, and in due course I shall want to consider it, without giving a final reply today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to pay an official visit to the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to pay an official visit to Jerusalem.

My right hon. Friend visited both Egypt and Israel shortly before the election was announced. He has no plans to visit the Middle East at present.

Will the Minister give an assurance that he will pursue an even-handed policy in this extremely sensitive area, and try at the earliest opportunity to bring together the oil-importing and oil-exporting countries, with particular regard to the problems of the Third World and the underdeveloped countries generally?

To take the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question first, the answer is "Yes, indeed." That matter is being discussed at the Washington conference at present and will certainly be taken up at the special session of the United Nations Assembly in two weeks' time.

When the Foreign Secretary next visits Jerusalem, will he try to improve still further Anglo-Israeli relations, which reached a very low point last October? Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, rather than achieve that improvement by resuming arms sales, he might do worse than consider the possibility of improved economic and trade relations, particularly with regard to citrus products?

My right hon. Friend is concerned with the whole question of trade relations with Israel and, of course, with the other Middle East countries, but he will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity of considering the views expressed in the foreign affairs debate last Tuesday by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), some of which caused offence to certain people? Will he now comment on what my hon. Friend said? I told my hon. Friend the Member for Heeley that I would raise this question.

Yes, Sir. At the time of my hon. Friend's statement I was asked whether I would comment on his remarks, and I replied that I preferred to see HANSARD before doing so. I have looked carefully at my hon. Friend's remarks, and I must say that Her Majesty's Government would in no way wish to be associated with the language used by him about Israel, or with his comparison between the situation there and that in South Africa. I am sure that it is neither right nor helpful to use such language.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response to my intervention last week. However, I wonder whether he has seen two reports in The Times today. One indicates that the British Government have supported the European Declaration on the Middle East, made on 6th November. I hope that that is not so.

Let me deal first with the 6th November declaration. It was a restatement of the principles contained in the United Nations resolution. Her Majesty's Government accept the wording of that resolution which, in our view, in no way changes the position adopted by the Labour Party both in opposition and now in government.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the policy of Her Majesty's Government is that Arab Jerusalem should remain an integral part of Jordan?

I do not intend to be drawn into confirming statements of that nature. At a time when Dr. Kissinger is involved in very delicate negotiations, it is in no way helpful for Governments to line themselves up on one side or the other.

Do the Government intend to continue to encourage schemes for industrial co-operation and partnership in Egypt and other Arab countries which are of great long-term economic and political value to this country?

Yes, Sir. In the article written by my right hon. Friend when he returned from his visit to both Israel and Egypt, he emphasised the value that we place on our economic relationship with those countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he is making to the French Government on nuclear testing in the Pacific.

I am examining all aspects of this subject. Her Majesty's Government's general policy will be based on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' declaration at Ottawa, concerning the Partial Test Ban Treaty.

Are we supporting the views put on behalf of New Zealand by Mr. Walding?

My hon. Friend has a capacity for asking short, succinct and difficult questions. I do not want to go further than I have today until I have examined this matter. Then, no doubt, my hon. Friend will probe me again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay an early visit to Hong Kong.

My right hon. Friend has no present plans for a visit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of ILO conventions which operate fully inside the United Kingdom are not applied fully inside Hong Kong? Is my hon. Friend further aware that we want him either to go personally or to send a commission of inquiry to Hong Kong to see how we can match that model economy's technological advance with similar measures in employment protection?

The statistics of human rights conventions show, at 31st December 1973, 20 ILO conventions which had been applied without modification to Hong Kong, and nine which had been applied with some modifications. That compares very well with other countries in the area. I understand my hon. Friend's question, and I can tell him that the overseas labour adviser recently paid a visit to the colony. I expect his report shortly. I think that it will throw new light on the situation. I shall bear in mind the points made by my hon. Friend.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is severe concern in Hong Kong following the Budget speech yesterday of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The statement indicated that Her Majesty's Government may be considering withdrawing from South-East Asia. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Her Majesty's Government are determined to support Hong Kong, to stay in Hong Kong and to maintain the garrison in that colony?

The hon. Gentleman will remember that my right hon. Friend referred in his Budget speech also to the defence review being carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Clearly, it is an all-embracing review. It would be unwise—I have no intention of doing so—either to trespass on his territory or to answer questions that relate to particular parts of the review. Before the hon. Gentleman leaps to his feet, I can assure him that no changes will be made affecting any part of the world without the fullest consultation with our allies and the occupants of the area.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the case of the British police officer in Hong Kong who committed a criminal offence there, came to this country and could not be returned to stand trial in Hong Kong? Are there any plans to avoid a repetition of that situation, so that people who commit an offence in a British colony cannot then seek refuge in the United Kingdom?

This is a difficult problem. The offence alleged against the gentleman in question, in respect of which a warrant has been issued in Hong Kong, concerns a matter which is not an offence in this country. It is an offence under Section 10 of the Hong Kong Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, but, since there is no corresponding offence in this country, the Hong Kong Government are not in a position to seek his return under the Fugitive Offenders Act. It would not be easy, therefore, to produce legislation that would enable this to take place in the case of a matter which is not an offence in the United Kingdom.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when his party, in earlier years, proposed to withdraw from east of Suez, it never proposed to withdraw from Hong Kong? Does he recognise, also, the absolute importance of maintaining confidence in Hong Kong?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. There is no doubt that Her Majesty's Government's commitments to Hong Kong will remain, and there is no suggestion at all that our presence in Hong Kong should be withdrawn.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will terminate the negotiations for the adherence of the United Kingdom to the treaty of association between the European Economic Community and Greece.

The negotiations on the protocol to adapt the association agreement between Greece and the EEC have made no progress for some months. The Community's relations with Greece will be considered as necessary in our continuing review of EEC policy.

Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that these negotiations offer the Government a much more effective lever for persuading the Greek Government to restore democratic institutions than the mere cancellation of a naval visit? Will he at least agree to make any renewal of these negotiations conditional upon the release of Mr. George Mavros, the leader of one of the major political parties in Greece, whose only offence has been to support the Government's policy towards Greece?

These negotiations are on a narrow commercial point concerning not membership but association. As to the attitude of the Government, I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no doubt where we stand on the need for the restitution of democracy in Greece and our feelings about the imprisonment of those people who thought it right to express their support for the action which the Government took.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the decision to cancel the naval visit to Greece was widely welcomed in all parts of the House? Will he convey to the Greek Government the fact that many of us believe that incidents such as the arrest of Mr. George Mavros make it less rather than more likely that the Treaty of Accession negotiations can be continued?

I am in strong agreement with my hon. Friend's comment about the necessity for democracy to be restored in Greece before proper negotiations can continue concerning the relationship between the Community and Greece. I hope that the Government of Greece will understand the strength and depth of feeling held not only by the Government, but in all parts of the United Kingdom, and will feel that it is in their own interests, as well as the interests of the restoration of freedom in general, that they should make substantial progress towards achieving in Greece the sort of democracy we expect in the Western world.

Nevertheless, is not the hon. Gentleman aware that many people believe this to be a petty and spiteful attitude that may have an effect on our shipyards, which are to construct naval vessels for Greece?

For 150 years, not least concerning the revolution in Hungary 150 years ago and the American Civil War, workers in Britain have been prepared to pay the commercial price for standing up for principles on freedom. Long may they continue.

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

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present but would not wish to rule it out later if a suitable opportunity arose.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of ditching the people of Gibraltar by changing its status in any way contrary to their wishes?

My hon. and learned Friend will recall the Gibraltar Constitution Order of 1969, prepared and approved under the same Prime Minister in a different administration. That remains our policy and endorses exactly the point made by my hon. and learned Friend.

Does not the Minister agree, too, that the problem in Gibraltar now is not so much economic as psychological, in the sense of the claustrophobia that is developing there? Should not we look at all possibilities of making it easier both for Gibraltarians to come here on visits and for English people to go there at more reasonable cost than is possible today? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Gibraltarians are locked up in a very small area and that in that context they need assistance?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view in principle about the feeling of claustrophobia felt by the people in Gibraltar. I hope that that feeling may soon be overcome. But the initiative to overcome that feeling rests largely with the Spanish Government, who are in a position to make progress along those lines. I hope that the Spanish Government will learn what the hon. Gentleman has said, and the Government's attitude to the matter, and make a reduction in claustrophobia possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the question of Namibia.

We support the undoubted right of the people of Namibia freely to decide their own destiny, and we shall play our part in promoting a settlement based on full self-determination.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I am vigorously opposed to racialism wherever it appears, whether in South Africa or the Middle East? Will she initiate discussions with the United Nations High Commissioner for Namibia, Mr. Séan MacBride, to see what useful diplomatic or other action we can take to bring pressure on South Africa to relinquish her hold on that territory?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We want to make a decision in the matter as quickly as possible. The Security Council has not yet resumed its debate, but we hope that it will soon do so in order that those matters may be fully discussed.

In view of the international status of South-West Africa, will the Government consider making representations to the South African Government about some of the more barbaric forms of punishment being carried out against those who are politically active against the present South African system?

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said and I shall certainly bear it in mind when the discussions are resumed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has changed the basis upon which senior Foreign Office personnel are appointed.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman quite sure about that? Although I am not in any way criticising the calibre of Mr. Ivor Richard as the new ambassador to the United Nations, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people feel it a great insult, not just to the Diplomatic Service but to the United Nations, that he should remove Sir Donald Maitland after only a few months in office and replace him by a man who in public has said that he plans to return to this country in a few months' time to fight the next General Election?

A great many people may feel that, but I have not heard it until this afternoon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the appointment of Mr. Ivor Richard has given great satisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes, and the better they know him, the more satisfaction it has given. They wish him well in this difficult job. Hon. Members should not make it more difficult, as the hon. Gentleman has.

I expect that the appointment of Mr. Ivor Richard has given as much satisfaction—[An HON. MEMBER: "In Blyth?"]—perhaps to different people as did the appointment of Lord Cromer in his day and Sir Christopher Soames on an earlier occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper outlining the Government's proposals for discussion at the Law of the Sea Conference.

I am not sure that a White Paper is appropriate, but I am considering how best hon. Members can be informed and consulted about the issues that will arise at the conference.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he bear in mind that there is a great deal of confusion about what will be the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the extension of limits, ownership of the seabed, fishing and all the other matters? It would be most helpful not only to hon. Members but to the community as a whole if all the options, objections, discussions and possibilities were included in one document and fully discussed so that there was an informed public opinion before the conference.

I shall consider the point made by my hon. Friend. I agree that there are some extremely important issues to be taken up at the Law of the Sea Conference. I welcome and appreciate any representations that are made by organisations with a particular interest, and I shall seek to find a way in which we can have an informed discussion before the conference.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the United Kingdom is almost alone among the approximately 130 States represented at the conference in not announcing its position in advance? Is he aware that there have not been proper consultations with the fishing industry about the evidence put forward? Will he also take into account that Scottish inshore fishermen will not be satisfied with a United Kingdom delegation that does not represent their interests separately?

I do not for a moment accept that the United Kingdom delegation will not both represent and take into consideration the interests and the needs of all parts of the United Kingdom, including that part represented by the hon. Member. I assure him that there will be consultations and that any representations, from whatever part of the country and from whatever interests, will be taken very seriously indeed.

This important conference, opening in Caracas on 20th June, will be discussing the total affairs of 72 per cent. of the globe's surface—conservation, pollution, wealth of the seabed and the like. May I ask one question on the limited subject of fishing? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, unlike the unhappy days of the Icelandic dispute, when the House was divided about our policy, we come to this conference with everybody—vessel owners, unions, deck hands—wishing to make our fishing limits, like those of Iceland perhaps, 50 miles or even 200 miles? Will he bear in mind that it is a united team that wishes Her Majesty's Government to have our limits extended?

I shall not comment on every part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. I am aware that there has been an encouraging change of opinion and that there is much more unity than previously. I shall be delighted to discuss these matters with my hon. Friend, who knows so much about them, before the conference takes place.

Can the Minister confirm that discussions are taking place with our partners in the EEC about whether an EEC policy can be advanced at the Law of the Sea Conference?

I can confirm that wide consultations are taking place with the other members of the European Economic Community. Obviously some of them have different interests. Our task at the conference will be to represent the interests of the whole of the United Kingdom and we do not want to seek a watered-down approach which would mean that the interests of particular parts of the United Kingdom were not taken fully into consideration.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question.

I did not hear the hon. Lady's intervention from her seated position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-American relations.

Her Majesty's Government attach very great impor- tance to maintaining and improving the friendly relationship which exists between the United Kingdom and the United States.

What are the right hon. Gentleman's views on the future of American military bases in this country? Does he not feel that these are important factors in cementing Anglo-American relations and for the future of NATO as a whole?

They are important factors, and they would form part of any multilateral discussions that would take place on disarmament.

Will my right hon. Friend exploit his 25 years' friendship with leading Americans to persuade the United States that, in its own interests, it is not sensible, against the wishes of Mrs. Gandhi, Mrs. Bandaranaike, President Suharto and many Africans, to have a nuclear zone and bases such as Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean?

I understand that there is more than one view in the United States on this matter. It is one of the problems to which I intend to give careful attention. However, I do not wish to take up a position on it this afternoon.

Does the Foreign Secretary intend to have discussions with our EEC partners about a joint energy policy with the United States in view of the unsatisfactory outcome of the Washington conference?

Yes, Sir, these discussions are taking place. Dr. Kissinger will be here tomorrow, and I hope to have further discussions with him about any differences that may have arisen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy in regard to the appointment of a Labour Party delegation to the European Assembly.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council on 18th March to a Question from the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).—[Vol. 870, c. 664–5.]

The Foreign Secretary has tried to hide behind the Leader of the House and, this afternoon, the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman now, once and for all, come clean and tell the country why the Socialist Government have used the institutions of the Community, such as the Council of Ministers, but still refuse to send a Socialist delegation to Strasbourg to swell the Socialist benches? If he still will not send a Labour Party delegation, will he recognise that this country is well represented by the Liberal and Conservative delegations?

I think that the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council are ample figures behind which to shelter. They have stated the case, and I do not have to repeat it.

Will my right hon. Friend refrain from wasting time considering whether the Government should send official representatives to the European Parliament? Will he concentrate, instead, on reviewing the allowances and travel arrangements of Members who attend at present?

May I say that, on all these matters which excite so many hon. Members, our first priority is renegotiation. That is what we are going ahead with. The other questions can no doubt, be considered in due course.

As the European Parliament is considering questions of renegotiation, does the Foreign Secretary appreciate the widespread dismay in the European Parliament at the continued emptiness of the 18 chairs, because of the great history of help to social democracy by Ernest Bevin, John Hynd and others in the years after the war?

Yes, Sir. We have played our full part in various forums of this sort. We can consider this matter again in due course, but it is not a matter of first priority, bearing in mind the limited powers of that Assembly.

Would not my right hon. Friend be well advised to reconsider the question of sending a Labour delegation to the European Assembly? Does he not agree that such a delegation, particularly in view of our renegotiations, would much better represent the interests of Britain than do the tattered remnants of a discredited Opposition?

I find myself in agreement with parts of that supplementary question.

Would not the right answer be not to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick and some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but to fetch back those who are already there and thus relieve us of part of the cost to the Community budget which arises from having to pay inflated expenses while those concerned use charter flights at £46 a time and put the difference in their pockets?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As he so often is, my hon. Friend is out of touch with reality. I am the Member for Warley, East, not Smethwick.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would my right hon. Friend care to take the opportunity to define what authority the Foreign Secretary has over decisions—

Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total value of funds placed with the Crown Agents for investment by Governments of British dependent territories.

The holdings of the British dependent territories amounted to approximately £309 million at the end of January.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations, on the ground that she has just answered a Question in identical terms to one which I put to her predecessor some months ago which he categorically refused to answer? Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is deep resentment that British colonial funds are going into property investment in this country through the medium of the Crown Agents? Does she further agree that it would be a good thing if the investigation of the activities of the Crown Agents by the Select Committee on Overseas Developments in the last Parliament were to be continued in this Parliament?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. It would not be proper for me to comment on what the Select Committee might or might not in its wisdom choose to do. I assure my hon. Friend that I am taking further the inquiries which I originally initiated into the Crown Agents, but it will take some time to reach a conclusion, as my hon. Friend will no doubt understand.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what is the total value of aid supplied by Her Majesty's Government for the relief of peoples affected by the drought in the Sahel region of Africa; and what further help is proposed in the immediate future.

Last year the amount was about £2 million. This year it will be in excess of £3½ million. In addition, in response to an appeal by the United Nations Secretary-General, my right hon. Friend proposes, subject to parliamentary approval, to contribute £500,000 to his Sahel disaster fund.

I greatly welcome the contributions which have been made by the United Kingdom. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has said that at least $30 million is needed to alleviate what has been one of the greatest natural disasters in the history of this century? Will my hon. Friend consider persuading his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be more generous than the further £500,000 promised?

We are doing all that we can, and we believe that we are one of the first nations to respond to the appeal. That is something. I met the voluntary organisations last week, and they tell me that a far bigger problem than money or food is transport. We are doing all that we can to get the vehicles so that the food will go to the people.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that one of the most disturbing features of the situation in the Sahel region, particularly in Ethiopia, is that famine arising from persistent drought over a long period is largely predictable, and that if people are dying, as they did last year and are now, that is due largely to the failure of the international community and the governments concerned to co-ordinate aid effectively and in time? Are the Government prepared to take any initiative at international level to deal with this tragic situation?

Again, my right hon. Friend and I invited a number of people, including Jonathan Dimbleby, to the Ministry last week to discover precisely what was happening. We discovered that this was a major problem and that information was not getting through. We have asked for all the help and assistance that we can get, and shall then do whatever we can to mitigate what, as the right hon. Gentleman says, is one of the great tragedies of this century.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first excellent answer to my question in the House? I should like to ask him, at his leisure, to look into the question whether the Sahara is advancing into the coastal Littoral of West Africa, and whether it is not a short-term matter of too many mouths to feed, or, even more important, whether there are too many animals to feed upon the venegation in that belt.

This is a matter which our officials are studying very closely, but there are differences of opinion.

In view of the excellent work done by the Royal Air Force during the past three or four years in this area, will the Service be asked to help again?

That is another matter which is being considered. There is a possibility that some of the Governments who have been helping will be withdrawing their assistance. We hope that that will not happen but if it does we shall have to consider the possibilities of replacing it.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to discriminate in the grant of aid to developing countries according to the political alignment of their Governments.

Political considerations can never be ignored in deciding on the allocation of aid resources; they have always been a factor and they will continue to be given due weight by Her Majesty's Government. But the major consideration is the developmental value of aid for the people of the country concerned.

Is the right hon. Lady aware that her fondness for supporting Communist causes has given grave concern to Governments and people of developing countries that have suffered internal or external Communistic aggression? Will she state more clearly that she will suppress her worst prejudices and consider the interests of the people concerned, and not the left wing of her party?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will write to me and explain what on earth he means.

Although I have some sympathy for the attitude of the right hon. Lady and her Government towards Greece, I think that there is considerable uncertainty among many business men about Her Majesty's Government's attitude to many countries overseas, ranging from Greece, Portugal and Spain to Chile. Will she therefore consider consulting her right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary with a view to setting up a boycott office in order that British business men may be aware to which countries they may arrange to export with the certain knowledge that they will not, after completing a contract, be undermined by Her Majesty's Government?

The hon. Gentleman might do well to refresh his memory by reference to some of the courses which the Labour Party completely supported when his Government was taking action in relation to the suspension of aid to other countries. I assure him that I am in close consultation with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I would also add that we have to consider whether the very limited development aid budget is being correctly used.

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

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will review the grants given in lieu of pension to former employees of the Aden and Zanzibar Governments, in the light of the rise in the cost of living since December 1971.

British pensions increase arrangements already apply to certain overseas pensioners, and those former employees of the Aden and Zanzibar Governments who fulfil the criteria are beng paid the increases due to them. The arrangements do not, however, apply to former local officers of overseas Government services for whom the British Government had no special responsibility during their service or for their pensions.

But these are the very people for whom I am seeking help, who in many cases have no other income and who have relied upon the generosity of the British Government. Now they have found that this aid extended to them has been reduced by at least one quarter, owing to the rise in the cost of living in, for example, India. Will not the Government help these unfortunate people?

We believe that we are, as did the previous Government, fulfilling our moral obligations. We know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in this matter. There are practical difficulties. If the hon. Member cares to discuss them with us, we shall explain in detail to him.