asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his discussion with the Governments of India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand and Indonesia on the development of Anglo-American bases in the Indian Ocean, such as Diego Garcia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth countries regarding developments for defence purposes in the Indian Ocean; and if he will make a statement.

The United States proposal to expand its facilities at Diego Garcia is still being considered. This question is relevant to the general background of the review of defence commitments and capabilities which has already been announced. This review will take full account of the needs for security and stability in the area. The views of Commonwealth and other interested countries will also be carefully considered.

Is the stability in the area likely to be helped or not by a nuclear-free zone?

We are well aware of the proposals for an Indian Ocean peace zone. We are looking forward to the report of the United Nations ad hoc committee which is expected shortly, and we shall give the proposals careful consideration.

Will the Government bear in mind, and draw to the attention of the countries in the area, that the Soviet Union has the use of bases on the shores of the Indian Ocean? Unless and until a binding international agreement is reached to the contrary, is it not reasonable that we and our allies should have similar facilities?

It is true that the Soviet naval presence has increased steadily in quantity and quality over the past five years and is larger than that of the Western countries. However, I do not intend to give an answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question because I can assure him that we shall be taking into consideration all representations and the views of all countries when a final decision is reached.

Surely my right hon. Friend realises that that is a self-defeating defence exercise if our friends and allies in the area do not want this base.

I have not indicated any decision by Her Majesty's Government. I made clear that this matter was being carefully considered, and I indicated also that the views of the Commonwealth and other interested countries were being taken carefully into consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common Market renegotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of his renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made with the renegotiation of the terms of the EEC agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he can now state his detailed proposals for renegotiating the terms of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's renegotiation of the terms of entry to the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will outline his specific proposals to the Council of Ministers on renegotiation of the terms of entry of the United Kingdom to the European Communities; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of renegotiation of the EEC agreement.

The preparation of Her Majesty's Government's detailed renegotiation proposals has been making good progress, and I expect to make a further statement on them at a Council of Ministers' meeting early next month. They will be fully consistent with the objectives which I have already explained in the House. I shall, of course, report to the House after the meeting.

I very much look forward to hearing about that. However, in the meantime, in his talks with his Common Market colleagues, has the Foreign Secretary been able to discover what his predecessor meant by political European union by 1980? May we have an assurance that the Government are opposed to any further steps in the Common Market towards a federal or supranational State?

What I have discovered is that the Council of Ministers and, apparently, the other institutions are under a remit to produce both a definition of this term and proposals for achieving it. So far there does not seem to be a consensus. Therefore, there is no case for us to move any further at present.

May we have an assurance for the future?

This is so far into the distant future that I am more concerned at the moment with the immediate difficulties that are besetting us.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people in this country who, irrespective of its definition, would not want Britain to be part of a supranational European State? Is he not also aware that many people believe that if there is to be procrastination he should see that it is kept to a minimum, because in these negotiations procrastination could be the thief of our liberty?

I am well aware of that. It helps to frame the approach of Her Majesty's Government to these problems. However, there is a long way to go before there is any agreed policy on this development.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members welcome the fact that the Government are negotiating in good faith to see whether arrangements can be reached by which Britain would stay in the Community? Will he confirm that the negotiations are essentially about economic matters and not the present basic structure of the Community?

What we are negotiating about is the matters that were put forward in the White Paper. They are being developed in the course of talks, both now and in the future, until I make the full statement early next month. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that there is support for the policy of renegotiation. I wish that it had been taken a little more seriously rather earlier when what we were saying was dismissed.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to his colleagues, in the immediate present and not the distant future the EEC beef mountain has reached 75,000 tons? That is depriving the British public of supplies of beef at reasonable prices. May we be assured that, whatever else happens, one condition of these negotiations will be freedom from the absurdities of the common agricultural policy?

What I have said about the common agricultural policy so far represents our approach to it, and it is desirable that its illiberal characteristics should be removed as far as possible.

I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his assurance that the Labour Government are renegotiating with a view to staying in the Community. Is he aware that the proposal of a referendum in this country strikes at the very heart of representative democracy?

This was an essential part of the policy upon which we fought the General Election. Because we did so, we shall, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, carry out our obligation to consult the people, either by this method or by way of a General Election, but my right hon. Friend felt that it would be more likely to be by way of a referendum. I recommend the hon. Gentleman in all friendliness, as I keep recommending a lot of other people, please to read what we said, what we fought the election on and what we are trying to do.

Once he has cleared the major obstacles of renegotiation, will my right hon. Friend look at the device used by the Council of Ministers known as "stopping the clock"? Is he aware that the clock has been stopped and was stopped for a long time before the Labour Party took office and reopened the European issue on regional policy? When George Thomson was in this country a short time ago, did he tell my right hon. Friend when that clock would start again?

I did not see Mr. Thomson when he was in this country recently, so I did not have a chance to talk with him about it. I should have been happy to see him or anyone else. I seem to spend my life receiving deputations from one country or another.

Including the President of the European Parliament?

Yes, including even him, with pleasure; even the right hon. Gentleman, if he makes a request in writing, in due course. As far as the general issue is concerned, we shall carry forward the policy we have enunciated. There is some progress on regional development, but I am not sure that it is yet near agreement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of support for what the Government propose by way of continuing negotiation, which is largely the content of the Luxembourg speech? Will he consider issuing a White Paper before he next goes to Luxembourg or Brussels in order to indicate what is "continuing negotiation", what is "renegotiation" and exactly what the Government want?

It is my desire that the House should be kept fully informed on these matters. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know from his experience, however, when one is renegotiating it is hardly desirable to set out all the cards face upwards on the table before one starts. I shall certainly try to carry the House with me by this kind of information. That was why I published the recent White Paper, which was my major speech at Luxembourg.

On the subject of the referendum, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if 18 million people vote to stay in and 11 million vote to come out, the Government will come out? That is the basis on which they are the Government.

The Government will reach a conclusion in the light of whatever result is shown by the referendum.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the outcome of the talks he has so far conducted in pursuit of the fundamental renegotiation of British membership of the EEC.

So far so good, but we have not yet begun detailed talks.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that some anxiety was expressed in recent questions about the non-encounter with Dr. Cornelis Berkhouwer? Will he on a future occasion find an opportunity to meet the good doctor and explain to him that many people feel that the wings of this Parliament were wantonly clipped by Section 2 of the European Communities Act and that a successful renegotiation will restore to this national Parliament law-making capabilities which we have no intention of yielding to a Strasbourg Assembly?

I think that at the end of the renegotiations Section 2 of the European Communities Act will need to be scrutinised very closely to see how far it fits in with our requirements and with the overall desire of this House to maintain control of its own affairs.

My right hon. Friend said a little while ago that there was a long way to go. I am in complete agreement with him. Will he make it clear to the EEC however that if there is any question of this country's becoming a supranational State or joining in a federal organisation we shall have no part in that?

I think that that is is fairly clear. I assure the House that I was as polite as I usually am in this House when I was talking about it, and I confined myself mainly to questioning this concept and asking what was really meant. That revealed a surprising number of different views and thoughts about what it meant. I am not at all sure that the best thing to do would not be for the Council of Ministers to publish what we in this House call a Green Paper setting out all the varying views on which public opinion could debate.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that negotiating in good faith means acceptance of the views that he expressed on sovereignty on 9th May 1967?

Yes, I am sure that it does, although I do not have the reference beside me. What I do not think it involves accepting is the communiqués that were issued in Paris in 1970 or 1972 for which no definition has yet been provided and for which no definition exists.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why he refused to receive a courtesy call from the President of the European Parliament in Luxembourg on 1st April.

As I said in answer to a question on 3rd April, I should have liked to have made the acquaintance of a number of people in Luxembourg but, as they seemed to understand, time did not permit.—[Vol. 871, c. 1261.]

Whom does the right hon. Gentleman think he is kidding? Does not this studied insult to a loyal and staunch friend of this country epitomise the ham-fisted and arrogant way in which the Foreign Secretary has been treating our partners in Europe ever since he took office?

There were a number of requests from people that we should meet them and a number of people whom I wished to see. Dr. Berkhouwer was one of them, but only one of them, and he is the only one who has complained. When he comes to London, or if I go to Brussels or if I see him in Luxembourg, I shall be delighted to see him and I have no doubt that we shall find ourselves the best of friends.

Will the Foreign Secretary overcome his natural politeness to the President of the European Parliament and tell him, when he sees him, that he should keep his nose out of domestic British affairs instead of referring to the possibilities of referenda in respect of the independence of part of the United Kingdom?

If Dr. Berkhouwer or anyone else wishes to make comments on this matter I shall not object. It all adds to the sum of total information that we collect and the views that we hear on these matters.

Will the Foreign Secretary in future show the same good manners on the Continent as he shows from the Treasury Bench in this House?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misled by the Press. Unless he believes that the contents of the speech I made as contained in the White Paper—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman was not there—no more and no less represented bad manners, all I can say is that that was all I said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice about the domestic political situation, especially the policy of apartheid, is given to visiting British business and tradesmen by representatives of his Department in South Africa.

Factual information is given to members of trade missions and to any visiting British business man who asks about these matters. Information and advice are available on the effect of apartheid legislation on conditions of employment. In future we shall ask people to pay special attention to the report of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee on the wages and conditions of African workers in South Africa on which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade will be making a statement later today.

What kind of advice will my hon. Friend's Department be giving to members of the British Lions rugby football team about visiting South Africa? Will it, for instance, be stressing to that team that the greatest sustenance and encouragement that it could give to the voortrekker spirit, to the laager mentality in the whole policy of apartheid, would be to play all-white teams in a sport in which there is some kind of national pride? Will the Department's officials explain to that team, if it goes, that by playing these matches it will be seen, by Black Africans especially, to be propping up and perpetuating the whole policy of apartheid?

My hon. Friend is well aware that my right hon. Friends and I totally agree with what he said on the whole question of sporting links with South Africa. We have made clear that we do not think that the Lions rugby tour should go ahead. We think that the tour would be very damaging to what we are trying to do in connection with black Africa.

Does the hon. Lady agree with the view that Britain's economic involvement in South Africa should be reduced, a view that is expressed in "Labour's Programme for Britain 1973"?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out to me that he has read our programme for Britain. I am happy to tell him that the whole question of our trade with South Africa and its effect upon this country is part of the review we are carrying out. I hope very soon, in conjunction with the Labour Party policy document, to be able to make a statement when the whole review has taken place.

rose—

Order. We must get on. In any case, there is to be a statement later today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the European policy of Her Majesty's Government.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement which my right hon. Friend made to the House in the foreign affairs debate on 19th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 858–74.]

If it is the policy of the Government to have no United States Polaris bases, no European deterrent, and cuts in British defence expenditure, what in the Government's view is our European destiny? Is it something like that of Finland or of Czechoslovakia?

All that this Government have done over the last two months has indicated our wish to talk in terms other than the grandiloquent ones concerning destiny and more related to the realities of our situation. The realities of our situation require renegotiation of our relationship with the Community and a substantial reduction in our defence expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the United States Secretary of State.

I have at present no firm arrangements for a further meeting with Dr. Kissinger, though there is a constant exchange of views.

Can the Minister assure the House that, when he does meet the United States Secretary of State, the question of Vietnam will be raised, in particular the matter of the continued detention of political prisoners by the illiberal Thieu régime and the implementation of Article 21 of the Paris peace agreement under which America promised to contribute to the reconstruction of the country which it so dastardly savaged over the last few years? Will he raise these as matters of great importance and urgency that concern the people of this country?

The American administration are aware that it is the policy of the Labour Government to support the Paris peace agreement in all its forms. When I was in both South and North Vietnam just over a year ago, I asked that prisoners should be brought to trial—they exist in both areas—and that there should be international teams of inspection. I was referred by each side to the other, and each side told me that if the other would produce its prisoners it would do the same. So far we have not made any progress beyond that point.

Is it not a fact that the aggression of the North towards the South has been proved beyond doubt? Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear when he meets the American Secretary of State that Britain is still committed to supporting the territorial integrity of South Vietnam?

The Paris peace agreements provide for that. They provide also for elections in South Vietnam, and these elections should be carried out as soon as it is possible to hold them.

As we are a party to the Paris agreement, which has accorded equal diplomatic status to the Governments of North and South Vietnam, will my right hon. Friend consider giving to the Provisional Revolutionary Government in North Vietnam similar status to that which is given to the Government of Thieu in South Vietnam?

The answer to that question is "No". There are already two Governments in Vietnam, one in North Vietnam and one in South Vietnam. In the view of the British Government, the introduction of a third Government would not help to settle that area. The best thing is that there should be free elections in South Vietnam.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the recent deterioration in Anglo-American relations was due largely to the fact that we were members of the Common Market, which tried to speak with one voice, that the voice with which we had to speak was nearly always that of France—the lowest common denominator of all nine—and that the sooner we can speak with our own voice the sooner will Anglo-American relations be on a far better basis?

There is a problem, so long as the Community is trying to move forward on the political front, about consultation with the United States; and that took up a great deal of the discussions we had recently. I have made clear, I believe with the support of the House, that we regard ourselves as free to consult the United States at any stage of any consultations that are going on with the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

My right hon. Friend looks forward to seeing Dr. Waldheim as soon as this is mutually convenient. I had a very useful talk with him in New York in April.

In view of the critical situation of many of the developing nations as a result of the oil price increase, will the Foreign Secretary when he next meets Dr. Waldheim press him to convene a conference of developed member States of OECD, COMECON and the Arab oil-producing States so that a more effective system of aiding the developing nations can be worked out, above all on the basis of the relationship of the population of each developed country to its gross national product so that more can be done to mitigate the disastrous effects of the oil price increase on the developing nations?

This has been one of the main issues at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly which has been in session for three weeks and which completes its meetings either today or tomorrow. Her Majesty's Government have put forward their position very clearly and have taken a positive rôle in the negotiations.

In view of the indications that Britain may resume involvement in the United Nations Committee on De-colonisation, can the Minister give the House an assurance that, with respect to our policy in Gibraltar, it is the Government's view that Gibraltar is not an area that requires to be decolonised?

I can give that absolute assurance. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been a number of occasions on which the people of Gibraltar have been consulted. Their views have been made clearly known and we have made those views clearly known also to the Committee of 24.

Is the Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the continued failure of the international community to do anything really effective about providing machinery for the early warning of disasters and adequate relief once disaster has struck? Bearing in mind that millions of people are at risk in this connection, when the right hon. Gentleman is next in contact with the Secretary-General will he impress upon him the need for fresh initiatives in this respect and will he pledge the British Government's support to do what is necessary?

I can say two things in this connection. First, we are looking very carefully at proposals for more effective emergency action when emergencies arise, as they have done so tragically in Africa. Secondly, in relation to the United Nations special session, one of our greatest concerns has been not simply in relation to the words that are used but also to ensure that action is taken to help less developed countries which have been very hard hit by rising prices of oil and other commodities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the proposal issued by the EEC Governments on 4th March 1974 relating to co- operation between the European Community and the Arab world.

Yes, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the growing partnership between Europe and the Arab world is of enormous potential value to both regions, and will be give the House the assurance that the British Government will not fall behind their EEC colleagues in supporting it?

I gladly give the assurance asked for in the second part of my hon. Friend's question, and I agree with the first part and the implications therein.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his policy towards Vietnam in view of the continuing state of hostilities.

Our policy is to support the Paris agreement as a framework within which the Vietnamese parties can work out a lasting settlement in Vietnam. We greatly regret the continuation of hostilities in certain areas of Vietnam.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing supply by the United States of America of the most sophisticated military weaponry, including tanks and military aircraft, to the Thieu ré, and will he make clear that we do not approve of this as a means of helping to bring peace? Will he also undertake to give further consideration to the possibility of the recognition of the Provisional Revolutionary Government as peace cannot be achieved there without bringing all the parties into the final peace agreement?

In a sense, both points have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. We are absolutely committed to the Paris agreement, and any breaches of that agreement or any acts damaging to it—and casualties and warfare are damaging—are deeply regrettable. In answer to the question about recognition, my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear that we recognise one Government in South Vietnam.

Would the hon. Gentleman like to say that what his right hon. Friend said goes without saying? It would be helpful to have it on the record that elections are needed not only in the South but in the North, and that they should be free elections in both places.

I repeat that not only are we in favour of peace throughout Vietnam, North and South, but we believe that there should be elections in the North and South and that there should be fulfilment of every part of the Paris agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is now the intention of Her Majesty's Government to become a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia; and if he will make a statement.

We are examining the whole question of Namibia, including our attitude towards the Council for Namibia. I cannot now anticipate the outcome of this review.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that when the review is made the Government will accept the 1971 opinion of the International Court of Justice and will support all constructive and effective measures in the United Nations to oblige South Africa to comply with its obligations to withdraw from Namibia? Will she also recall that in the document to which the Foreign Secretary referred earlier this afternoon—the Labour Party's policy on foreign affairs, issued in 1973—it was said that we should be willing to participate in the United Nations Council for Namibia? Will she ensure that nothing is done to imply recognition of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this matter. I share his general concern about Namibia. In reply to his question about the 1971 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, he will appreciate, as I am sure we all do, that it needs careful examination before we make known our judgment and views on it. Although I am aware of my hon. Friend's impatience, it would not be right for me to anticipate this afternoon the outcome of our examination.

What representations have Her Majesty's Government made to the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reactivate the work of his team in bringing about a peaceful solution of the problem?

The Security Council will have to be recalled to discuss it, and no date has yet been fixed for that. It is a matter for the president to convene the council in consultation with its members. We are all very impatient that a decision should be made quickly.

Will my hon. Friend express her intense disapproval of the flogging penalties imposed by the courts in Ovamboland?

Yes, I certainly will. We all deplore these barbarous practices. We in Britain should take every opportunity to make clear our views. I regret that there have been reports of other cases which we have again taken up with the South African Government.

While agreeing with the Government that they should think very carfeully about their policy towards South-West Africa, may I ask that Her Majesty's Government, as a major contributor to the United Nations Organisation, should not become involved in major expenditure and should scrutinise the expenditure on the administration which apparently exists in the United Nations of a territory which it cannot enter?

This is really another question. If the hon. Gentleman would care to put down a specific question on this matter, I should be very pleased to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to pay a further visit to Brussels.

My right hon. Friend expects to visit Brussels for the Council of Ministers' meeting on 7th May.

When next he visits Brussels, or preferably before, will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity of confirming that Britain has no intention of following the example of the Italian Government yesterday in the limitation of imports? We understand the Government's policy of renegotiating the terms of entry, but will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as long as we remain members we shall fulfil our obligations under the treaty?

We have made very clear how we shall behave during the period of renegotiation—that is, not only to observe the terms of the treaties but to take our part in on-going business in so far as that is consistent with our renegotiation objectives.

In these comprehensive renegotiations, will the Government be very careful not to renegotiate inadvertently those parts of the treaties which make certain foodstuffs cheaper for British housewives?

The Government are very conscious of that. I hope that my hon. Friend is conscious also of the fact that, while temporarily the CAP system may be working on our side, the longterm implication of the CAP is that we may move into periods when it is very much working against us. Clearly what the Government need is a régime in which we can look forward with some certainty to having a reasonable system of agricultural financing in all conditions and all circumstances.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the renegotiations will encompass the regional policy fund? Is he not aware that there are rumours in Brussels that the size of the fund waiting on the table for him to accept is in the region of 1,450 million units of account?

Of course, our renegotiations include attitudes towards both the regional fund and regional policy. I urge the hon. Gentleman, however, to understand that rumours of all kinds emanate from Brussels, and the one he has just described is one of the most extraordinary rumours I have heard coming from that place in the last eight weeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a protest over the case of Mr. David Martin, correspondent to the Observer and the BBC, who was expelled from Tanzania after 10 years' work there at 24 hours' notice because of his reporting of the actions of General Amin of Uganda.

No, Sir. We naturally regret the short notice which was given to Mr. Martin, and our High Commissioner tried unsuccessfully to obtain an extension of this time limit. We cannot, however, challenge the right of a sovereign Government to expel an alien.

Is the hon. Lady aware that this is not the first time that the Government of Tanzania have behaved towards a British subject in a manner which is a little less than civilised? Is it not time that we made known our views? Does the Under-Secretary accept that when Governments do this kind of thing the attitude of the Foreign Office towards an offending Government should show no discrimination as between Left-wing Governments and Right-wing Governments?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to reassure him that there is no question of discrimination against Left-wing Governments, Right-wing Governments or any other kind of Government. It is a fact, however we deplore it, that neither the Tanzanian authorities nor any other Government have to explain why they have expelled an alien. There is very little we can do about that, however concerned we may be.

Is it not a fact that the number of journalists and others who have been expelled from African territories is increasing and is rapidly becoming a standard which is undermining good relations with this country? Will the Minister make a protest and tell High Commissioners to stand up for the rights of British subjects?

I am honestly not absolutely certain whether the number of journalists and others being expelled has increased. If the hon. Gentleman would like to put down a Question on this subject, I shall certainly answer and take up his other comments.

Will my hon. Friend accept that we are perfectly entitled to go a good deal further than she has suggested and press the President of the country concerned, who is a personal friend of many hon. Members, to be more forthcoming about giving information? Has not a bona fide correspondent a right to freedom in his reporting? Will my hon. Friend take further action in this matter?

I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. If hon. Members are concerned—and there is concern about this—my hon. Friend might like to see me to discuss further what could be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards raising at the United Nations the matter of the treatment of political offenders.

Our policy is to play an active and constructive rôle at the United Nations in the promotion of human rights, and we shall support practical measures designed to protect political freedoms and improve the treatment of prisoners, whether political or non-political.

In line with that very welcome declaration, will my right hon. Friend draw attention, through our Ambassador at the United Nations, to the growing barbarous practice of incarcerating political dissidents in mental hospitals, and will he link such observations with our very strong feelings about the case of Vladimir Bukovski, who is in a Soviet labour camp precisely because he communicated information about these practices to Western psychiatrists?

We have already made known our views on what I entirely agree with my hon. Friend is a barbarous practice. This issue has been referred to in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and I share my hon. Friend's concern about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend make it quite clear to the Soviet Ambassador, when either of them next sees him in London, that neither Russia nor any other nation can be regarded as a civilised nation while people are as barbarously treated as they are, not only in the case to which the hon. Gentleman referred but in the case of the many Soviet Jews and Christians whose names have been in the headlines in recent weeks?

It is clear that Members on both sides of the House could voice criticisms about situations in all parts of the world. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government regret any breaches of freedom and any acts of torture which may be committed in any part of the world, not only in one part.

Has this matter been raised by the United Kingdom delegates to the World Health Organisation?

I should need notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to ascertain and publish the names of the original Members of the United Kingdom Parliament who are still members of the European Parliament.

All of those originally designated by this House in the resolution of 19th December 1972 remain members of the European Assembly. Their names appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT.—[Vol. 848, c. 1253.]

Will my hon. Friend, in any information he publishes in this connection, show which of the parliamentary parties these representatives represent, whether Conservative or Labour? Further in view of the Labour Party's policy on renegotiating terms of entry, what co-operation are our permanent delegates receiving from the Government on the lines of renegotiation?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I believe—of course, I am open to correction—that there are conventions of this House which prevent party labels from being put against the names of right hon. and hon. Members when they appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT. but it is well known which parties take their places in the Assembly and which do not.

In view of the very critical renegotiations which are going on, does not the hon. Gentleman consider that it is absolutely essential to send delegations to the European Parliament so that the hon. Gentleman may be fed back with information about the detailed work of the committees?

No. Sir, I do not agree with that. I believe that were the Government now to change their established position, it would put a very substantial question mark against the seriousness of our intention to renegotiate. I say that notwithstanding the fact that on two occasions in this House I voted for the Labour Party to be represented at Strasbourg, but I do not think that that would now be in the best interests of our renegotiation strategy.

Will my hon. Friend agree that it is a scandalous state of affairs that there are ex-Tory Members of Parliament supposedly representing Britain in the European Assembly who are making money out of the British tax-payer, fiddling their accounts by going there on charter flights? Now, to make the matter even worse, we have the further information that members of the European Assembly are trotting around with three or four different coloured Biro pens in their pockets, signing and forging signatures of people who were supposed to be attending the Assembly and drawing money in their name.

The final part of my hon. Friend's question contains very serious implications and allegations, and I certainly have no intention of commenting on them. As to the tone and nature of the question, I hope that he does not become infected with the disease of finding scandal where there is none.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to define exactly whom these delegates to the European Assembly represent? It may be within his recollection that a very short time ago this House declared that it opposed certain proposals for a European driving licence. It is only recently that this matter was debated in the European Assembly, and our delegates did not even oppose the amended proposition.

I think that all those who have taken different views from those of their own parties about individual matters, as the hon. Gentleman and I have both done in our time, know that there is always some ambiguity about these matters, and individual delegates have to decide whether they are representing their own judgment or some party alignment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British position at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference with regard to fisheries limits and territorial waters.

In accordance with my undertaking to the House on 27th March, I am convening a seminar on 15th May at which both hon. Members and other interested parties will be able to make their views known on all aspects of our policy at the conference. Meanwhile, I am not in a position to make a statement on particular aspects of our policy.—[Vol. 871, c. 441–3.]

I thank the Minister for convening the seminar, which I think will be very useful. Is he considering co-ordinating EEC policy on fisheries limits or will it be merely a British policy? It seems to some of us that if the Minister could obtain an EEC policy it might be more effective at the conference.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comment on the decision to call the conference. I hope that he and other hon. Members will take part. We are, of course, in consultation with our colleagues in the EEC and in other countries about the conference, but I do not want to take any firm position in advance of the seminar, which will be held for the purpose of consultation.

I do not for one moment want to embarrass the Minister, but will he note that there is all-party support for the extension of limits to 200 miles? The fishing industry is delighted, but will my right hon. Friend note that we must not be chauvinistic about this? We must allow landlocked nations such as East Germany and Poland, which have fine fishing fleets, to have access under the licence system to the waters in and about these islands

I am aware that the United Kingdom fishing industry has given a good deal of support to the extension to the 200-mile fishery zone. I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend, which has also been made in representations from other quarters, that we should look carefully at international concerns as well as at national ones.

I join in congratulating the Minister on his decision to convene a seminar, but may I ask whether he is aware that there is still concern among fishing interests in Scotland that they have not yet been consulted by the Government over the pro-positions to be put forward at the conference? Is he also aware that there is great support there for the 200-mile limit, which we believe will guarantee the future of the fishing industry?

Apart from consultations that are taking place at official level, invitations have now gone out to a large number of organisations in connection with the conference. If the hon. Gentleman has in mind people whom he thinks should be invited, I should be most grateful if he would let me know as quickly as he can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards the Atlantic Alliance.

I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the Government's policy towards the North Atlantic Alliance set out in the Gracious Speech.—[Vol. 870, c. 43–4.]

Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that the Government were elected to seek, as a first step, the removal of the American Polaris bases in Holy Loch? Have negotiations begun on that?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made the position absolutely clear on 9th April, when he said that the Polaris Holy Loch situation was part of a wider and longer negotiating process. I have nothing to add to the answer he gave then.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that our relations with the United States are a good deal less sour since the Conservative Government left office?

I think that is very true and very visible.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will list the political criteria which she takes into account in making a decision on which countries should be in receipt of overseas aid.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will list the political criteria taken into account in decisions to give or deny aid to developing countries.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development what political criteria she employs in her decisions to grant aid or other assistance to foreign countries.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will indicate all the criteria taken into account in making decisions to provide overseas aid.

The major criteria are the relative economic need for aid and its developmental value for the people of the country concerned. As was the case with my predecessor, any decision involving political criteria is taken on its merits.

I welcome that answer, but can the right hon. Lady give an assurance that the political complexion of the prospective recipient, be it Chile or Uganda. is not the governing factor in these decisions?

It is true to say that the political complexion of a Government is not a major criterion. Actions involving events which offend the attitude of many people in many parts of the world can be, but that is rather separate from the political complexion of the Government.

Would it not be a reasonable criterion to employ, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, to say that we are no longer a great Power, that we must dissociate from the dictators and that when the barricades go up we must know which side we are on? We know what side Opposition Members are on, which is also a useful guide. Would it not be reasonable to employ democracy as a major criterion in the granting of aid?

That was probably implicit in what I said to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)—that it is not so much the political complexion of Governments as when Governments, clearly by their actions, arouse tremendous emotion. I can think of instances when my predecessor took similar action—Uganda was one, and another concerned the more limited action that the Government took, which we supported at the time, in relation to Pakistan and Bangladesh when events in Bangladesh deeply concerned many people here. Those were not precisely political criteria, but they were instances where conscience was affronted in relation to democracy and other aspects.

First, will the right hon. Lady accept my congratulations on her sturdy even if silent support for her Government's policy of help, even if not aid, for Chile by the export of warships? Secondly, does she agree that one of the criteria she should take into account, if she is taking political criteria into account in these matters of aid, is whether there is freedom for journalists to come and go to a country and whether British subjects are held in prison without trial in that country? Will the right hon. Lady look at our policy on aid towards countries that indulge in these practices, imprisoning British citizens without trial?

To take the last point of the hon. Gentleman's question first, in all these cases my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is always assiduous in protecting the rights of British subjects. To take the middle part of the hon. Gentleman's question, while one is prepared to accept and welcome the free visits of journalists to see all that is to be seen, I cannot accept that in any of the journalistic reports of recent events in Chile there has been such freedom of reporting. On the first part, it comes a little amiss from the hon. Gentleman, who has opposed the suspension of aid to Chile, to welcome anything that may or may not be done by this Government in other respects towards Chile.

Is my hon. Friend aware that successive investigations by all-party groups in the House have consistently said that the first criterion must be the needs of the people of the area? Will she please stick to that?

The needs of the people can be properly met only by a Government whose basic policy is to care for them. The trouble in Chile has been that the intervention in democracy—the overthrow of democracy—has prevented this criterion from being satisfied.

Does the right hon. Lady remember criticising the merger by the previous Government of the Ministry of Overseas Development and the Foreign Office as totally bad and foolish—they were strong words—on the ground that it would introduce foreign policy considerations into the question of aid? Can she say when she decided to modify that view and why?

The right hon. Gentleman and I have had a similar exchange on this matter before. I suggest that he is not totally aware of my views. I should be happy to send him one or two examples of what I have written explaining those views fully.

In looking at the question of aid, will the Government consider our special obligations to the countries that were our former colonies in Africa and Asia which happen to be particularly large and which have suffered greatly from the high cost of oil which is required for transport?

As I think my right hon. Friend knows, the bulk of our aid goes to Commonwealth countries in Africa and Asia. I am keenly aware, as I expressed to some of my colleagues in the Council of Development Ministers in Luxembourg yesterday, of the particular needs of the Asian Commonwealth countries in that respect.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development if she will review the British aid programme in view of the change in the price of oil and other commodities which has taken place in the last two years.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) on 5th April.—[Vol. 871, c. 479.]

May I remind the Minister that on 30th January she accepted that there was a strong case for taking a completely new look at our aid programme in view of the dramatic change in commodity prices? In a wide-ranging review of our aid commitments, will the right hon. Lady consider increasing dramatically the proportion of our aid that is earmarked for disaster relief?

Yes, Sir. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that, although I cannot yet give the results of our review, I am taking a close look at how we should organise disaster relief in so far as it concerns my Ministry and what we should do within our aid framework to provide continuing amounts for that purpose. It is clear that the famine and disaster situation is not likely to be much improved in the next year or two. Therefore, we must take full account of that situation.

asked the Minister of Overseas Development when was the most recent date on which the Council of Ministers of the EEC considered proposals for the relief of famine in the Sahel region of West Africa; what decisions it took; and when this matter will be considered again.

On 10th December 1973 the Council approved provision in the 1974 Community budget totalling 40 million units of account—that is, the equivalent of about £17 million—for relief and rehabilitation. It also agreed that 130,000 tons of cereals, 6,000 tons of butter oil and 14,000 tons of skimmed milk powder should be sent to these countries.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the special interest he personally has taken in this disastrous situation and on taking the trouble to look at the matter on the ground for himself. Will he tell us what planning is now going on to deal with what is clearly a long-term disaster area in Africa, where the problem might stretch over a number of years? Is any serious effort being made to set up a planning organisation in Brussels that would look in depth at the problem and provide long-term assistance?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I have just spent 10 days in the drought area, and I have seen sights that I shall never forget. A massive international operation is under way, with 700,000 tons of food being sent to the area, but there is a good deal of evidence that much of that aid is arriving late. We are having detailed discussions with everyone concerned in order to speed up the operation and ensure that no problems arise in future. The question of long-term planning is under active consideration both in my Ministry and in Brussels. In my view, this is a matter of overriding concern.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the administration of this aid is being carried out satisfactorily? Is there not a crying need for Europe to send in administrators to ensure that the aid gets to those who are in most need of it?

I think that there have been problems, and there still are problems. We are doing all we can to sort them out, but I think it is fair to say that had it not been for the international operation many millions of people would be dead.

While welcoming everything that can be done to help the people of this region, may I take it that in this and in other disasters that may occur there will be no ideological consideration in the matter and we shall try to give help to people who need it?

I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman means. I saw thousands of children dying on their feet. As far as I am concerned, that is not a matter of ideology; it is a simple matter of getting food to people who are desperate.

In considering what assistance the EEC countries might give in circumstances like this, what account will Her Majesty's Government take of the recent report by the Select Committee on Overseas Development, and when do they expect to respond to its recommendations?

We shall certainly take due note of all that has been said by the Select Committee. The answer to the second part of the question is that my right hon. Friend will deal with the report in due course.