asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has made to the NATO Council on disaster relief; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has made no proposals in this respect.

Where is he?

Signing the NATO declaration in Brussels.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the strength of the Alliance rests not only on the nuclear guarantee but also upon the vitality of the Alliance? Will he persuade his right hon. Friend to treat with urgency this question of the peaceful use of armed forces within the alliance?

I have great sympathy with that proposition but I do not want to say anything which prejudges the work going on in NATO at the moment. Nor do I want to say at this moment how the balance should be distributed between NATO responsibility and United Nations responsibility. My hon. Friend is right in saying that NATO ought to share this sort of responsibility as well as its wider rôle.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider making arrangements to permit official Canadian involvement in the future of the Turks and Caicos Islands.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to the Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Mr. Lamont) on 19th June.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is a need for economic development in these islands and that it would be reasonable to expect, if that development occurs, that Canadian involvement would need to be considerable? May I ask whether it would not be wise, to avoid exploitation of those now living in these islands, to have formal consultative arrangements with the Canadian Government?

I accept what my hon. Friend has said about economic development. It is Government policy that constitutional development in these islands should be in accordance with the wishes of the people there. Subject to this I would welcome any proposals which may be of benefit to the islands.

To what extent is the Colonial Development Corporation involved in the islands, and are there any projects in mind for this area which have not been announced?

I could not give the hon. Member a detailed answer to that question. If he will write to me I shall be happy to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contacts he has made with the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia; 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 progress of negotiations between the Rhodesian Government and the African National Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contact has taken place with the Smith régime in Southern Rhodesia; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has received no direct reports from the Rhodesian régime, but hon. Members will have seen in the Press that it has detained Dr. Edson Sithole, the Publicity Secretary of the African National Council, and that in consequence Bishop Muzorewa has announced that the ANC would suspend negotiations with Mr. Smith. These developments seem to set back the prospects for an early accommodation between the Africans and Europeans in Rhodesia, since in our view such an accommodation must be reached if there is to be a peaceful settlement for Rhodesia.

In the light of those remarks may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would care to say—as Bishop Muzorewa has indicated his intention to discontinue negotiations with the régime—why it is that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is meeting Canaan Banaana, the No. 2 of the African National Council, this week? Further, in this situation, will he confirm that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends will begin to take a more charitable view towards the white minority in Rhodesia, who, coming under increasing pressure—as they will in the coming months, as a result of the changed situation in Mozambique—will need some encouragement from this country if they are to be persuaded to accept a reasonable solution to the problem which will avoid widespread bloodshed?

On the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question, the encouragement I want to give to the white minority in Rhodesia is for them to recognise the facts of the situation and properly enter into negotiations with the Africans to secure a just and fair settlement which would be acceptable to the majority. In answer to the first part of the question, I very much hope that Dr. Sithole will be released, but we welcome the possibility and likelihood that representatives of the African National Council will be here in London shortly. They are hoping to meet my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and this should provide a valuable opportunity to enable us to be brought up to date on discussions taking place there and to take stock of the situation.

Although there may not have been any recent contacts between the British Government and the Smith régime, is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the level of contacts that have been maintained in Rhodesia by British firms and State-owned corporations? For example, is he happy about the sales representation force which is still being maintained by British Airways in Salisbury?

I am aware of the problem of the British Airways office in Salisbury, and I am informed that this matter is now being looked at as part of the general review, particularly in respect to sanctions against Rhodesia.

Is it not Government policy to hope that talks between Mr. Smith and the ANC will succeed, in which case does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the sort of remarks alleged to have been made by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in Zambia will help in any such agreement? Is it not a fact that Bishop Muzorewa told the Press that he knows of no representatives of ANC who are coming to visit Her Majesty's Government?

I am not aware of the last matter mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The representatives who are coming here are, we understand, senior representatives of the ANC. It remains to be seen whether they will come with any message from the Bishop, but they will be welcome here because it will enable us to be brought up to date. On the situation following the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, I support what she said, and I believe that the representations she made on her visits to East Africa will be extremely helpful in respect of contacts with organisations in Rhodesia.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at his original reply, in which he appeared to suggest that all Europeans are on one side with Mr. Smith and all Africans are on the other side against Mr. Smith? This racialist over-simplification is damaging. Will he avoid it in future?

The hon. Gentleman is right to the extent that there are differences, and happily so, within the white minority. It has been reported in the Press that there will shortly be an election, and those differences may well be made clear. On the point about the African majority, I have little doubt that the African National Council enjoys a wide measure of support among Africans in Rhodesia, but it does not mean that it has any exclusive claim to represent African opinion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes to visit Latin America.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Latin America, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of State will be paying an official visit to Mexico from 29th June to 1st July, and will then lead the United Kingdom delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference for the period 2nd to 5th July. Other Ministers also have plans to visit Latin America this summer.

I am grateful for that reply. Will the hon. Lady ask her right hon. Friend to reconsider this matter and perhaps plan a wider and more extensive visit to various countries in Latin America? Does she not agree that the recent unveiling of the statue to Simon Bolivar in this country is an illustration of the enormous fund of good will in Latin America towards Great Britain? Does she also accept the growing importance of trade between Latin America and Britain, which last year amounted to £900 million? Finally, will she consider sending one of her colleagues to the Argentine to reaffirm to that Government that there should be no change in the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands without the full consent of the islanders?

I accept what the hon. Gentleman said on trade and general good will. I assure him that my right hon. Friend will be dealing with both those matters when he makes his visit to Latin America later this summer. There is a Question on the Falkland Islands later on the Order Paper. We accept that the Islanders have the right to determine their own future.

May I emphasise to my hon. Friend that Ministers should take every opportunity to visit Latin America in view of the increasing regard in that continent for Europe, and this country in particular, the increasing volume of trade with the United Kingdom and the fact that British technology and products are still held in great store in prestige terms by Latin American countries? Does she not agree that there is a great amount of inter-dependability between Great Britain and Latin America?

I accept what my hon. Friend said. I would add that at least five Ministers are visiting Latin America before the end of the summer, and I think that that is a fair representation of our feelings on the matter.

Will the hon. Lady not allow the Labour Government's infatuation with the United Nations, and in particular with the silliest committee of all, the Committee of Twenty-Four, to cause them to overlook the importance of the Falkland Islands? Why did the Government propose talks with the Argentine if they had nothing further to offer?

May I say that I am not opposed to infatuation with the United Nations or anybody else for that matter—[Laughter.] There are lines one always has to draw. There is a later question on the Order Paper in regard to the Falkland Islands, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman tries to catch the Speaker's eye on that occasion.

I was under the impression that in her original reply my hon. Friend said that the Minister of State would be visiting Caracas for the Law of the Sea Conference. Will she give the House a pledge that when he is there he will safeguard the interests of the deep-sea fishing fleet and support our desire for an extension of limits to 200 miles?

My hon. Friend was correct in the first half of his supplementary question. On the second half of his remarks, my hon. Friend would not like to be committed at this stage.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the French Government following the announcement that nuclear testing in the Pacific is to be resumed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the French Government regarding its proposed series of further nuclear tests in the atmosphere.

I would refer hon. Members to my right hon. Friend's Written Answer of 13th June on this subject.—[Vol. 874, c. 627.]

In view of this morning's condemnation of the British protest by the French Prime Minister, will the hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the Secretary of State was aware at the time of the protest that Britain was exploding a similar device in the Nevada desert? Will he say whether any attempt was made to persuade the French Government to consider the virtues of underground as opposed to atmospheric testing?

I am amazed by that question, which shows a complete misunderstanding of the absolute difference between the two tests. The British test was carried out underground, in line with the partial test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty. The French test and the Chinese test were carried out above ground, in the atmosphere. Therefore, the situation between the two is entirely different.

Notwithstanding the difference, had the Foreign Secretary been told anything about the British test explosion when he made his representations to the French? If so, was not it hypocrisy? If he had not been informed, why was not he consulted, and what action will he take against those responsible for the test explosion?

There was no question of hypocrisy here. As I said on 24th May, this Government—and I hope, the Opposition—believe that all nuclear explosions, for whatever purposes, should be carried out within the framework of the partial test ban treaty and the non-proliferation treaty, to which a large part of the international community have already subscribed. Therefore, we were dealing with an entirely different situation. The representations which were made to the French and Chinese ambassadors concerned tests which were carried out in the atmosphere. The plea was that both countries should, as Britain has done, sign the partial test ban treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations have been made to the Governments of Zambia and Tanzania concerning the detention of British citizens, without charges being made and without trial.

The hon. Member knows from my letter to him of 6th June that during my recent vistit to Zambia I told the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Home Affairs of my concern about the United Kingdom citizens who are in detention without charge or trial. The Ministers undertook to do all they could to reduce the delay in bringing the two men to trial.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that is simply not good enough? I assume that she is aware that my constituent has been in prison without charges being made, and without trial, for three months, that his firm is behaving scandalously towards him, and that it has already declared him guilty by disowning him? Will my hon. Friend take steps to make representations to the firm, and give an undertaking that if and when this man is brought to trial he will be adequately legally represented?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the situation is far from satisfactory. He knows from my discussions with him that that is so. Mr. Petrie's employers terminated his service as from 3rd March, his last day of work, and they have paid him all the money due to him. His dismissal, of course, is a matter for his employers, and it is difficult for us to intervene. We understand that, however deplorable it may be, their action is in line with that taken in the cases of other workers detained in the past, and Mr. Petrie himself has indicated that he accepts the position. I made the strongest possible representations when I was in Zambia. I have asked my hon. Friend before to come to see me co that we could discuss the details of my talks and any further matters which he might wish to raise. We shall of course see that Mr. Petrie receives proper legal representation when he is brought to trial. I was given assurances about that when I was in Zambia.

Has my hon. Friend any information about the health and welfare of Mr. Miles, detained for some time without trial by the Tanzanian authorities?

I have not had time to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development all the details of the representations which she made in Tanzania. She returned only last night. Mr. Miles was arrested on 9th January and is detained under the Tanzanian Preventive Dentention Act. The High Commission has been in frequent touch with the Tanzanian authorities and has continued to press that Mr. Miles should be brought to trial if there are charges to be answered or else released. He has been visited three times. The last occasion was on 19th April. Another visit is expected to take place very shortly. He does not need a lawyer at present. The High Commission will discuss legal representation when the time comes and will give him any advice and help that he may need. When I have discussed the matter further with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development, I shall convey any additional information to my hon. Friend.

In view of the fact that two constituents of mine were recently released from Zambia ater being improperly held for some time—and I take this opportunity to thank her for her efforts—will the hon. Lady consider asking the Zambian and Tanzanian ambassadors to visit her at an early date so that she may voice the displeasure expressed in this House today?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that suggestion. If nothing happens in the very near future, I shall consider doing that. It could be very useful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the discussions that took place on Thursday 30th May between Her Majesty's Government and the Spanish Government over the future of Gibraltar.

These Anglo-Spanish talks between officials in Madrid on 30th and 31st May were entirely exploratory, without commitment and without prejudice to the positions of either side. No decisions were taken. The talks derived from the United Nations Consensus of last December.

Were the people of Gibraltar made aware that these talks were taking place? If not, why not? Does my hon. Friend appreciate all the harassment and economic pressure that they have had to put up with over several years? Surely my hon. Friend can confirm that at least it is not the intention of a Labour Government to hand over the people of Gibraltar to the Fascist régime in Spain.

A Press statement about the meeting was issued, and I hope that the people of Gibraltar know that one of the matters that the meeting considered was the issue not so much of harassment but of the restriction on travel in and out of Gibraltar. As for the most important aspect of my hon. Friend's question—the future of Gibraltar—I confirm that the Preamble to the 1969 Gibraltar Constitution Order—namely, that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar pass under the sovereignty of another State against their free will and democratically expressed wish—is and will continue to be the policy of the Government.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the people of Gibraltar have freely and openly expressed their desire to stay within the rule of law and within an area which has religious toleration and free trade unions? Does he also accept the deep concern being shown by the people of Gibraltar about Press reports of the negotiations that Her Majesty's Government are entering into at this time?

I doubt whether the concern is as great as the hon. Gentleman suggests, and I hope that my assurance today about the future of Gibraltar will allay any concern that exists. Our policy remains the absolute insistence that the people of Gibraltar must decide where their own destiny lies, and the hon. Gentleman is right that they have decided to leave it lying within the present constitutional arrangements.

Although we accept my hon. Friend's assurances, will he accept that being between a Fascist kingdom on the one hand and a feudal kingdom on the other is not a very fortunate position in which to be? Will my hon. Friend not only undertake that the people of Gibraltar will have the right to express their own opinions when any conclusion is reached, but accept that the people of Gibraltar should be told at all times what the British Government are doing?

I accept that, of course. That is why the talks concluded with a comprehensive briefing about the details of some of the rather prosaic subjects discussed, such as air access to Gibraltar, which, although there had been less progress than we had hoped, we felt should be made clear to them.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm—he has not made it clear in his answers so far—that the Gibraltar Government have been kept fully informed of the progress of the talks?

Yes, of course. It would hardly have been possible to keep them uninformed, since we briefed the newspapers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to seek any meeting later in the year with Mr. Sean McBride, United Nations High Commissioner for Namibia.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to meet Mr. McBride, but he will, of course, be glad to see him if an opportunity occurs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had a useful meeting with Mr. McBride at New York on 9th April and I myself had a valuable meeting with him in London.

Although I welcome the discussions which have taken place with the High Commissioner for Namibia, does not my hon. Friend agree that it is now high time that Her Majesty's Government accepted without equivocation the judgment of the International Court, the decision of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the decision of the Security Council that the occupation of Namibia by South Africa is totally illegal? Will Her Majesty's Government now use all possible diplomatic pressure to bring that occupation to an end?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. We are all anxious to reach a decision on Namibia as quickly as possible, and the matter is under active consideration by all of us. My hon. Friend will appreciate that there are difficult legal aspects involved. This is one of the things that has made the process of reaching a decision take a little longer than we had hoped. But we are making progress and I hope that before too long we shall be able to announce our decision.

When will the Government give up their foolish diplomatic vendetta against the Government of South Africa and, if they want to affect its policies, try something more constructive?

Most of that question will come up under Question 12. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will try to raise it then.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement following his recent official meeting with a delegation of South American politicians and Ministers who visited London to attend the unveiling ceremony of a statue of Simon Bolivar.

My right hon. Friend and I were delighted to have the opportunity of meeting the many distinguished visitors from the six Bolivarian countries. Their gift of the statue and its unveiling on such a prominent site illustrated the historic ties between our countries and provided a unique occasion to strengthen the good will that exists between us.

Is the hon. Lady aware that South America has had more experience of hyper-inflation than any other area in the world in recent years and therefore affords a suitable study if we are trying to combat the catastrophe that will come to the United Kingdom in the coming months? What arrangements is she making to ensure that members of the Government and the Civil Service visit South America to find out either how to combat hyper-inflation or how to govern a banana republic?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can learn about these matters from those countries, perhaps members of the Liberal Party would take that up, study it and make recommendations in the light of what they discover.

Did the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend take the opportunity to consult the distinguished visitors about the situation in Chile and, if so, what advice did they give?

For myself—I think that this applies to all of us—apart from general discussions which occasionally touched on Chile but were not directly connected with it, the answer is that no advice was given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been made in the review of relationships with Southern Africa; what action is proposed on Rhodesia, Namibia, Angola, Mozambique and South Africa; and if he will make a statement.

We have announced decisions on arms to South Africa; we have cancelled the licence for the Wasp helicopter and announced our intention of tightening sanctions against Rhodesia. We have also made known our attitude towards sporting contacts with South Africa and we shall announce other decisions when they are taken.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I know that we are pleased with the action already taken by the Government. Does he realise that the Labour Party in its policy statement has gone much further and that, in recent weeks, the Fascist dictatorship in Portugal has now ended, which means that Mozambique and Angola will soon be moving towards independence, that this has dramatically changed the situation in Southern Africa and that therefore the Government should clearly state their attitude to the illegal régimes in Namibia and Rhodesia and say that we, with the rest of the world, will not continue with the policies of the previous Government?

Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have already made clear our attitude towards the illegal régime in Rhodesia. It is true that the situation in Africa and the prospects for countries which have been under colonial rule have dramatically changed as a result of the situation in Portugal. We naturally hope that the parties concerned—both the new Portuguese Government and the liberation movements—will be able to negotiate agreements providing for lasting settlements of the political future of the territories concerned. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is right to say that the situation, particularly in Mozambique, will have a profound effect on the future of Rhodesia.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the disastrous effects of this Government's policies towards Southern Africa? Is he aware that, in my constituency, 700 men, at least, are facing redundancy at GEC Traction Limited, which supplies the locomotives to South African Railways and has done for the last 30 years, and that this contract is worth £3 million a year? Just how far are the Labour Government prepared to carry their futile moralistic posturings at the expense of British jobs and British balance of payments interests?

What I will say is that I am very much aware of the great damage done to this country's reputation and to our trade by the previous administration's attitude towards the Government of South Africa. That affected our relationship with many other countries in Africa, as well as countries in other parts of the world, and put our country in a very small minority of States. In relation to trade, there has been no change in the Government's attitude towards commercial relations with South Africa. If any change were to be made, of course, it would be announced to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to other members of NATO that there can be no question of this Government's supporting any attempt to extend the influence of NATO into the Southern Atlantic and make further defence arrangements with racialist countries like the Simonstown Agreement, which some of us already view with distaste?

The Simonstown Agreement is one of the issues in our review. As for general relationships and the sea routes, it would be wrong for me to make any comments which would prejudge the review of current defence commitments and capabilities announced in Parliament on 21st March. I absolutely understand my hon. Friend's depth of feeling on this subject.

Since it fundamentally affects any hope of improving relations with one of our most important export markets, will the right hon. Gentleman try to remove the glaring inconsistency which causes so much damage out there, whereby the Prime Minister condemns violence and terrorism in the pursuit of political ends but people like his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State, a few thousand miles to the North, support violence and terrorism in pursuit of political ends in Southern Africa?

My hon. Friend has never supported violence and terrorism. What I will say—I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree—is that, in those countries like South Africa and Rhodesia in which the normal democratic opportunities for self-expression are denied, those very circumstances create the conditions in which violence can often become inevitable.

On a point of order. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Further to that point of order. Since I found the answer satisfactory, I hope that I shall catch your eye on the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

Further to that point of order. I hope to be here myself.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs if he will undertake an official tour of the Middle Eastern capitals.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about progress being made towards resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for visiting Middle Eastern capitals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House will be disappointed to hear that? Will he consider asking for a change of policy on this matter, so that the Foreign Secretary can tour these Middle East capitals and make a list of those which he thinks are suitably democratic and those which are undemocratic and then tell British companies so that they may know with whom they may trade and with whom they may not? Then, perhaps, we could scrub some of the possibilities of trade and put some more men out of work, like the constituents mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill).

There is no need for my right hon. Friend to visit the Middle East, although I hope that the opportunity will come; I said that he had no immediate plans. I assure the hon. Gentleman that trade relations with countries in the Middle East are encouraging. In several countries there is a great desire—which we are encouraging—for trade relations and for the use of British technology. The Government, and British firms, are signing valuable contracts which will be to the advantage of the employment situation here as a result of actions taken in the last few months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his EEC negotiations, he will discuss ways of securing adequate Scottish representation on Community institutions.

No, Sir. In filling posts open to citizens of the United Kingdom no distinction is drawn between candidates from England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. Appointments are made on their merits.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the vital interests of Scotland are not always identical with those of England and that there is need in negotiations for the particular Scottish point of view to be heard in the institutions of Europe, when these matters are being discussed, and that the Scottish point of view should be clearly seen to be being expressed?

Of course, and I accept without reservation that in some particulars there is a proper Scottish point of view. But I hope that my hon. Friend will equally accept that those Scottish interests and that Scottish point of view are represented very robustly by the Foreign Secretary and the other Ministers who speak for Great Britain.

Is it not the case that one British judge at the Court of Justice, Lord Mackenzie Stuart, is a Scotsman, of the two Commissioners one is a Scotsman—Mr. George Thomson—that the British delegation to the European Parliament has about double the number of Scotsmen on it that it should have, and that if the Labour Party sent a delegation Scotland would be even more fully represented?

It is certainly true that, numerically, Scotland occupies a larger proportion of the representation at all these institutions than would be the case were it done on a pro rata basis in comparison with the population. But in the history of this Government and the administration of this country, that has always been so, and no doubt it will continue in the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his negotiations with the EEC, he will discuss how Scotland might gain representation on an equal basis with other small nations making up the enlarged Community.

Her Majesty's Government will ensure that the interests of every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, are fully safeguarded within the EEC, and I do not think, therefore, that the question of separate representation for Scotland need arise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the surest way of safeguarding the Scottish position would be to secure a renegotiation package in complete accord with Labour Party policy? Is he further aware that if, by some mischance or bad luck, he misses the main target of the renegotiation—which is the transfer back minster—Scotland might find it necesof sovereignty from Brussels to West-sary to seek member State membership of the EEC?

I have no hesitation or qualification in agreeing with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. Of course, the best interests of Scotland will be preserved—indeed, the best interests of all the United Kingdom will be preserved—by the continued pursuit of the renegotiation aim laid down in the Labour Party manifesto. That is what my right hon. Friend is doing and will continue to do. The second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question about separate Scottish membership of the EEC is a hypothesis which I hope will never come about in practice, because, as my right hon. Friend has made clear time and again, we are renegotiating for success and I do not propose to consider at this early stage of the negotiations what is to happen if the renegotiations turn out to be a failure.

Shortly after the United Kingdom entered the EEC the British delegation triumphantly announced that a tremendous amount of development aid would be coming to Northern Ireland. Since it has never materialised, why has it not been granted? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that this supports the notion that Northern Ireland ought to have proper representation—and I mean proper representation—in the Common Market?

The hon. Gentleman, I understand, rejoices in the fact that external relations for Northern Ireland are conducted by the United Kingdom Government. If he believes that that is right and proper, he must accept that the rule should apply to our relations with the EEC. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who has some knowledge of Northern Ireland, is looking after its proper interests very well indeed.

Will my hon. Friend remember always that the abiding slogan of the Labour and trade union movement, particularly of its left wing, was that the workers of the world should unite? Therefore, will he pay not too much attention to the very narrow-minded nationalism that emanates par ticularly from what is called the "left wing" of the Parliamentary Labour Party?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have indicated to Her Majesty's Government that they favour a pulling back by the United Kingdom from the European Communities.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend gave on 17th June to a Question from the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).—[Vol. 875, c. 17.]

Is not that rather odd? As this is a phrase which the Foreign Secretary used himself in his speech, should not the hon. Gentleman elaborate on it a little? Ls not the fact of the matter that the Commonwealth argument so often used by the hon. Gentlemen's right hon. and hon. Friends against British membership of the Community has now been absolutely stood on its head in that, in the Commonwealth, particularly among the poorer countries, the overwhelming hope is that Britain will stay in the Community and help them get proper access to the Community as a whole for their products?

No, I think that it was utterly reasonable that I should draw the hon. Gentlemen's attention to the entire paragraph from which he had extracted three words to include in his Question. The point that my right hon. Friend was making properly and necessarily, is that while there are very many Commonwealth countries which hope that we shall retain our membership of the EEC, Commonwealth countries are virtually unanimous in the hope that we shall renegotiate, and in doing so preserve and extend their interests. That position has been stated many times, most recently by Mr. Kirk in New Zealand on 5th June. My right hon. Friend was absolutely right in pointing out that balance of interest, which is retained membership but improved terms.

But does not my hon. Friend appreciate, nevertheless, that it is not the Commonwealth countries which must ultimately decide this issue but the people of Britain?

Of course, I accept that without reservation. I hope to answer a Question on that precise subject later today. But, while the British people must decide, I hope and believe that one of the things that will affect the people's decision is the influence of the Commonwealth. This is properly part of our renegotiation objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is contemplating any change in the unanimity rule in the Council of Ministers.

No, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the previous Government laid great stress on the importance of retaining the veto as a defence of our essential national sovereignty? Is it not a little unsatisfactory that this unanimity rule is just a convention and not actually a rule of the Community? Will he at least consider the possibility of arranging for the unanimity rule to be built in as a more permanent feature of the mechanism of the Community?

The unanimity rule has worked very well—though not enshrined in the treaties—for the last eight years. To preserve a country's proper interests one needs the unanimity rule as it now stands, and a Government who apply it fearlessly. The difference between now and before February is that we have both those situations.

Despite the fact, which my hon. Friend claims, of the presence of the unanimity rule, does he recall that in a written reply recently he declined to define Britain's major national interests where he feels that the rule could be invoked? Does he also recall that the last part of the text of the so-called Luxembourg Agreement is confined to certain agricultural matters and, therefore, implies that everything else is still subject to majority vote?

In practice that is not how the unanimity rule works. During the limited period that I have attended the Council of Ministers in Brussels and Luxembourg I have seen it worked by virtually every country which is a member of the EEC on virtually every topic that has been discussed. This is a great deal wider in practice than it appears to be in theory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with EFTA countries arising out of his renegotiation with the EEC.

None, Sir, as yet. But we shall of course be ready to discuss with the EFTA countries any developments in renegotiation which merit such discussion.

Has any of the EFTA countries told the British Government that it would not wish to continue industrial free trade with this country in the event of our withdrawal from the EEC?

No, Sir. I have no doubt that the EFTA countries would wish to do so. The problem to which we must address our minds is whether other countries would want to do the same.

Does the Minister agree that the total population of EFTA was about 90 million, of which Britain provided 55 million, and that, therefore, from the point of view of Britain, the whole arrangement was a farce?

No. I certainly do not subscribe to that view. I believe that EFTA, in its time, had very considerable benefits to offer Britain and considerable benefits to be enjoyed by the other members. Again, the question that we must decide is whether those times have now passed or whether it can be recreated.

May I express the hope that the Minister will have consultations with EFTA countries, because clearly our interests are very much bound together? Will he confirm that no EFTA country has expressed any desire for Britain to leave the Community?

I confirm the second part of that question with pleasure. As to whether discussions take place with EFTA, as sooner or later they are bound to do, this depends on the progress and the nature of each stage of the renegotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give further details on the method whereby the people will be consulted following his renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the Common Market.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 11th June, we shall have to wait and see how circumstances develop on this issue before we decide on the precise form of consultation. It will be either a referendum or—possibly—a General Election.

Can the hon. Gentleman help some of my hon. Friends who are rather confused as to precisely what the policy of the Labour Party is? Is he aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry has stated that it is Labour Party policy to have a referendum, and only a referendum? Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the view expressed by his right hon. Friend?

The policy of the Government is to consult the British people in one form or another. It is in that particular that our Common Market policy is so different from that of the Opposition. As to whether that consultation will take the form of a referendum or a General Election, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have said. The likelihood is that it will be a referendum. But that likelihood is not yet a certainty.

If it is to be a referendum, will my hon. Friend say how we can be certain that the British electorate will answer the question that is put to them, or will answer any question at all, for that matter?

I think that the British people will be much more likely to answer a question directly related to the Common Market in a referendum than they would at a General Election concerned with other matters. Clearly, many millions of British people will want to vote Labour in view of the splendid record of the Government in which I serve. Understanding that feeling, one ought to give them the opportunity to decide about the Common Market on terms which are not clouded by their normal party preferences.

If there were to be a referendum, how would the question to be put to the British nation be framed, and who would frame it?

It is early days to be asking such questions. When I tried to venture into the question of the administration of a referendum, I was virtually asked what colour the ballot boxes would be. I do not think that we are ready to give that sort of answer yet.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he has taken since his statement of 4th June to renegotiate the terms of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest discussions at the Council of Ministers on the renegotiation of United Kingdom membership of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about his EEC negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress with the renegotiation of Great Britain's terms of entry into the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on current negotiations with the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress of the renegotiation of Great Britain's terms of entry into the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made in the renegotiation with the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on EEC discussions leading to renegotiations of the terms of Great Britain's entry; and if he will make a further statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on his negotiations with the EEC.

Since my right hon. Friend's statement to the Council on 4th June, copies of which were placed in the Vote Office, there have been meetings in Luxembourg of the Development Cooperation and Agriculture Councils, at which we set out in greater detail our renegotiation objectives in the field of aid and on the Common Agricultural Policy. We also pursued our renegotiation aims under several agenda items at yesterday's Foreign Ministers' Council.

At the next meeting of the Foreign Ministers, which seems to be on 22nd and 23rd July, will the hon. Gentleman raise the question of a possible move to federalism in the EEC? I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he would oppose any move towards federalism and he gave a rather woolly reply. Will the Minister of State now give a clear undertaking—I hope that the Conservative Party will on its own behalf do the same—that the Government will block any move towards federalism—the real issue which the whole Common Market debate is about?

I am sure that some of the hon. Gentlemen's right hon. and hon. Friends would not be happy to find him limiting the debate to such precise lines, but I give an absolute assurance that the Government have been critical of the movement towards over-hasty federation and over-hasty political union, that this continues to be our position, and that it will be advanced robustly by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Since my hon. Friend has confirmed that no EFTA country wishes us to leave the Common Market and that there is virtual unanimity among Commonwealth countries that we should stay in.—[HON. MEMBERS "No."] If I have misinterpreted what my hon. Friend said, no doubt he will correct me. Since it is the case that all the EFTA countries wish us to remain in the Common Market, and Commonwealth countries are virtually unanimous in doing so, what is the position with regard to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement in the renegotiations? The agreement finishes at the end of 1974. What is the position of the Government in relation to renegotiation of the agreement between the EEC and the sugar-producing countries of the Commonwealth? These are vital matters for them.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made clear on 4th June, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development has confirmed, that we require, as a permanent future prospect in the Common Market, access of 1·4 million tons of sugar from the Commonwealth into the Community as a whole. It remains our position on the narrow point of Commonwealth sugar, but, of course, in the wider relationships between the Common Market and Commonwealth countries we expect the Common Market to provide improved aid and financial assistance for the Caribbean as well. That is one of our aims.

These somewhat bizarre renegotiations have shown clearly that, on all rational arguments, the Community as a whole is prepared to see improvement in the terms of membership on any matters for any member country, including the United Kingdom. Is that not the real argument here, and not an argument in terms of helping the Labour Party through its internal struggles? Should not the hon. Gentleman consider some of the other pressing priorities in the Community, which are more important than some of these spurious renegotiation aspects to which the Foreign Secretary is so addicted at present, such as, for example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—a centralised European approach to the problems of inflation; such as—

Order. That is enough.

The Government have made it clear that so long as our renegotiation objectives are not impaired and impeded we shall continue to take part in full in the on-going business of the EEC. In the not too distant future, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be discussing one of the subjects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. But since we believe that this House has a rôle in these matters, the House will have the opportunity to discuss it first. That seems to be the right balance between preserving the interests of Britain and preserving the interests of the EEC.

Will my hon. Friend accept that settling the matter by this House is not the most admirable way to do things, as was shown last time, in October 1971? Will he further accept that when the renegotiations have been completed, taking into account that this may be after the next General Election, the only satisfactory way of deciding what words should go on the ballot paper for the proposed referendum is to have them decided by that democratic body, the Labour Party Conference, which will remove all the uncertainty that arises out of exchanges between my hon. Friend and the pro-Marketeer sitting behind him?

Both my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I have been members of the Labour Party for 25 years. I am not prepared to accept many criticisms of the party or the conference, but I think that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree with me that of all the virtues possessed by the Labour Party conference, drafting referenda questions is probably not one of them.

rose—

Question No. 38.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My Question was grouped with Question No. 36.

Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to raise an infructuous point of order.

That is very wise. That is an example that I hope will be followed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the context of his study of British membership of the EEC, he has identified particular economic or political problems facing the United Kingdom that would be easier to solve if Great Britain were outside rather than inside the European Community; and which these are.

As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statements of 1st April and 4th June to the EEC Council of Ministers, we are negotiating for success, not failure. The questions raised by the hon. Member do not therefore arise at this stage.

Is that not rather odd, in view of the fact, as the Minister of State will recall, that his right hon. Friend, said in a speech in the House on 9th May 1967 that he could not think of many problems of an economic or political nature which would be easier to solve if we were outside rather than inside the Community? Will the Minister bear that in mind in his negotiations?

That is no doubt the case. I do not think that any of us would want to change anything that we have done in the past in speaking about or voting upon the Common Market. The essential fact is that our interests are best served if we can remain in on improved terms, and that is the object of our policy.

In view of the various answers which the Minister has given this afternoon, does he accept that there will be direct representation for Scotland within the EEC only if Scotland is given what it requires and desires namely, self-government? Does the Minister accept that that is the only criterion for direct representation of Scotland within the EEC?

I do not think that questions on the constitution of Scotland are properly for me. They must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland or raised during the debate which will be allocated, I am sure, to that subject.