asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he expects to have with the American Secretary of State.

I had discussions with Dr. Kissinger on 8th July. He gave me an account of President Nixon's visit to Moscow, and we had discussions about world economic and energy problems. As usual on such occasions, the content of the discussions must remain confidential.

Did the right hon Gentleman discuss NATO problems? Does he agree that the greatest danger that could face this country would be a withdrawal of American defence forces from Western Europe, and that the best way that we as a nation could ensure that that would not happen would be to pay what in American eyes is our fair contribution to NATO?

On the last part of the question, we must pay a fair contribution to NATO in our own eyes as well as in the eyes of our allies—not in the eyes of any particular country. On the earlier part, it is vital that the United States should remain a part of our whole alliance in Western Europe, and since I came to office it has been my desire to build this relationship. I hope that to some extent I have succeeded.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Israel.

I have no plans to visit Israel at present.

If the Foreign Secretary were to go, is he aware that he would find that that country is able to supply us with thousands of tons of citrus fruit? Will be give an assurance that in spite of what is being rumoured in Brussels the housewives of this country will be able to continue to buy their fruit free of any import duty or other kind of food tax? If he cannot give that assurance, will he say how he reconciles his failure to do so with his splendid words to the Council of Ministers on 1st April, when he said there would be no further integration, particularly on food taxes?

That is clearly a hypothetical question, since I am not going to Israel. In so far as it is not hypothetical, and I might go to Brussels, the answer is that it certainly remains our aim to seek favourable arrangements for the continuation of Israel's agricultural exports to the EEC. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade has taken part in a number of discussions on the subject, as has my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, and the negotiations are continuing. I have no doubt that the stand we have taken on these matters has had an impact on the negotiating mandate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in order to try to get peace in the Middle East, Israel has given up much territory, which makes it less well able to defend itself should a conflict arise, and that at the present time it feels in need of friends, particularly old friends, like this country? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his decision not to go to Israel? Such a visit would be extremely welcome to Israel at this time.

I hope that my failure to visit Israel will not be considered as a lack of friendship in that country. I was there and had discussions with the leaders in January, immediately before the General Election. I also had the opportunity of seeing Prime Minister Rabin a fortnight ago, at the Socialist International.

Presumably the right hon, Gentleman accepts Resolution 242 as being the most likely basis of reaching a settlement between Israel and its neighbouring countries. Does he also accept the interpretation of that resolution put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perth-shire (Sir A. Douglas-Home) at Harrogate?

I am afraid that I cannot give a glossary of what the right hon. Gentleman said at Harrogate. The Government have taken their own position on Resolution 242, and it is well understood.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the USSR and the USA on a comprehensive underground nuclear test ban, in the light of the recent agreement on a threshold ban only.

The treaty signed in Moscow by the United States and the Soviet Union makes clear that the new agreement is a step towards the goal of a comprehensive test ban which both parties have reaffirmed their determination to pursue. The United States and the USSR know that we share that aim.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some urgency in this matter, and no room for complacency about the present agreement? Is he aware that the trend in both major Powers is towards more accurate and smaller warheads, and that they would be unlikely to exceed the threshold set for 1976? Is he further aware that since the last partial test ban treaty there have been more tests every year than in the years before it, and therefore will he accept that only a total ban will stop the development of further generations of nuclear weapons? Will he take a British initiative to secure that?

That is the objective of what I said in my original answer, namely, that we believe—and I understand that the United States and the USSR share this view—that there is a need for a comprehensive test ban. One of the things standing in the way of that at present is the difficulty of proper international verification. There could be national, but not international, verification, and people would not feel utterly secure until international verification of such tests was possible.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by neighbours of India, following the explosion by that country of a nuclear device? Will he arrange for representations to be made by the Government to India that that kind of nuclear explosion, constituting an extension of the nuclear club, causes a great deal of unrest within the Indian sub-continent?

The House knows that we were seriously concerned lest the Indian tests should have the effect of undermining the non-proliferation treaty. That has been made clear. When the treaty comes up for review again next year it will be for all of us to examine how we can avoid the spread of nuclear weapons which, although they have passed out of public consciousness for the time being, nevertheless present a most terrible threat to the peoples of the world.

Did my right hon. Friend make representations to the Indian Government about the tests?

Our position was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State at the CCD conference recently.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets Mr. Gromyko and the United States Secretary of State, will he register the disappointment of the British people that at their recent meeting President Nixon and Mr. Brezhnev were unable to make progress on an effective agreement to control the deployment of strategic weapons systems, which gravely imperils the future security of all peoples in the world? Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider an initiative in that direction?

I shall obviously be willing to consider that, but from my conversations with Dr. Kissinger—I have not had the good fortune to meet Mr. Gromyko recently—I have no doubt that he is aware of the seriousness of the situation and that he will be working, as I am sure the Soviet Union will be working, to reach agreement on this matter. Both sides know that we shall be happy to take our share in it, but they have the major responsibility.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Rhodesian leaders of the African National Council; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his discussions with delegates of the Rhodesian African National Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official contacts he has had, since taking office, with Rhodesian political parties.

I met a delegation from the African National Council on 1st July. Its members gave me an account of the situation in Rhodesia as they saw it. I emphasised that Her Majesty's Government will accept no settlement which does not have the support of the African majority.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. Would he care to comment on the announcement by Dr. Gabellah, on his return to Bulawayo, that he had assurances from the British Government that they would take firm steps to deal with the problem of Rhodesia, and an undertaking that the British Government would not have discussions with the Smith régime? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right in those circumstances that there should be no further discussions between the British Government and the Rhodesian Government to accelerate the chances of bringing about a settlement?

I do not wish to comment on what Dr Gabellah said, as I do not have his exact words in front of me, and I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has correctly stated them, although I am sure that it was his desire to do so. As to the action we are taking, I told Dr. Gabellah and his friends that we had set in motion inside the EEC an examination of the way in which sanctions are being carried out, that we are reporting more breaches of sanctions to the United Nations now, and that we would take account of what they suggest to us in considering our policy towards Rhodesia. It is clear that any effective discussions with Mr. Smith and the régime will have to take place in the context of the representation of all the people in Rhodesia.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the prospect of talks with Smith and the illegal régime is lessened and not strengthened by the preventive detention of ANC leaders that has again taken place in Rhodesia recently?

In the Government's opinion it is deplorable that the régime should again have detained Dr. Sithole. I urge them to think again and release him, because he is one of the leaders in Africa who could help effect a settlement under which all the peoples of Rhodesia could have a fair future.

Dr. Gabellah and the ANC are definitely reported as having said that the right hon. Gentleman and the British Government would be taking a new initiative in the matter. Is that not so?

I do not wish to make a statement yet on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the matter.

What did the ANC leaders say about the refusal of Mr. Smith's illegal régime to allow Bishop Muzorewa to go to the talks? Did they have anything to say about the continued imprisonment of the leaders of ZANU and ZAPU, Dr. Sithole and Mr. Joshua Nkomo, and whether they should be invited to further talks?

Yes, Sir, and after the meeting with me they gave a Press conference at which they called for the release of the detained African leaders—not only Dr. Sithole but Mr. Joshua Nkomo.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the opportunity created by the announcement of a Rhodesian general election, although the Rhodesian Front has not yet been defeated in the Rhodesian Parliament? Does he realise that this is the last opportunity for the British Government to influence moderate non-racial opinion in Rhodesia? Will he announce that the Government would consider recommending the end of sanctions if a non-racial alternative to the Rhodesian Front were elected at the next Rhodesian elections?

It is a matter of judgment, but I doubt whether statements in the course of an election campaign are likely to meet with much response. Probably we shall not get much advance, if any, until the campaign is over. I have made it clear that in our view the round table conference that Mr. Smith intends to call would not satisfy the Government's views about the way in which these matters should be progressed.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's reticence about an initiative, particularly during a Rhodesian general election. But does he agree that the situation in Mozambique has made it more urgent than ever that the parties in Rhodesia should come together? If he should see an opening, will he take it in order to help them to do so?

I can give an absolute assurance on the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. Everyone who is not completely blind must realise that the situation developing in Mozambique and Angola is altering the internal position in Rhodesia, and will continue to do so. There will be more and more pressure on Rhodesia as the months pass by. I shall take any initiative that is open to me to get the parties together and to try to achieve a solution along the lines of the five principles that the right hon. Gentleman and a previous Labour Government attempted—one that will gain the support of the African people.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 25 is on exactly the same subject.

It was not grouped.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has completed his review of Southern Africa policy; and, in particular, whether Her Majesty's Government will now accept the 1971 opinion of the International Court on Namibia and will therefore support effective measures at the United Nations to oblige South Africa to withdraw from Namibia.

I have nothing to add at this time to the answer my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) and other hon. Members on 26th June.—[Vol. 875, c. 1538–40.]

Does my hon. Friend realise that our hopes and expectations that this Government would make an early review are giving way to a growing disappointment? We can understand that we cannot have the complete review, but would it not be possible to take items from the manifesto, such as a recognition of the International Court decision on Namibia, and have an announcement before the recess?

No one in the House is more impatient than I am to reach an early decision on the matter. Much of the problem of Namibia rests on the legal aspects. We are having the whole question of the International Court's judgment examined. Until that examination is completed, it is difficult to deal with other aspects of the Namibia situation separately. Announcements will be made as time goes on. I cannot give a date when we shall be able to make an announcement, but I assure my hon. Friend and others who have shown a great interest in the matter that our policy towards the review and other matters concerning Namibia is being considered with concern and sympathy for the Namibians.

Is the hon. Lady saying that she has no idea of when she may be able to indicate whether the Government accept the 1971 judgment of the court on the status of Namibia? It is extraordinary that she can make no forecast. Have the Government in their possession any evidence of acts of repression within Namibia? If so, what action does the hon. Lady propose in order to bring this to the attention of the United Nations?

I cannot give the House a date—I wish I could—because much of the consideration rests with the Law Officers. I regret that this has taken so long, but it is a complex subject, not something about which one can give an overall decision in two or three weeks. We have been making a detailed review of the whole matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans lie has to meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

My right hon. Friend looks forward to meeting the Secretary-General as soon as this is mutually convenient.

It is very important that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State meets the Secretary-General of the United Nations, because the United Nations has a great part to play in the maintenance of world peace. This has been underlined in the last few days, due to the Cyprus emergency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take an early opportunity to meet the Secretary-General.

I assure my hon. Friend that there have been a number of discussions with the Secretary-General. I had a long meeting with him myself at a special session of the General Assembly, and our representatives in New York are in constant touch with the Secretary-General, as is indicated by the number of occasions he has expressed deep appreciation for the rôle of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Secretary-General will he discuss with him the Secretary General's views about the likely world food situation over the coming decade? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary-General and other people in responsible positions, such as the Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, have expressed gloomy views about the probability that the world food situation will deteriorate over the coming years? Is he also aware that this is very relevant to the question whether it is likely that in future years we shall be able to buy food more cheaply outside or inside the EEC?

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw the attention of the House to what is a serious problem. The stocks of food in the world have never been—certainly not in the past 20 years—at a lower level than they are now, and there is also a problem regarding fertilisers. There has been discussion on this matter in the Food and Agriculture Organisation and recently at a meeting of a working party at which we were represented, and it will be a central issue at the World Food Congress which is to take place in November this year, in which we shall play an active part.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future rôle of the Commonwealth.

The Commonwealth, with its wide membership and its tradition of frank and informal discussion, has an important rôle to play in fostering international understanding and in promoting a constructive and co-operative approach by the world community to present problems. At the same time the Commonwealth association will continue to provide a valuable forum for co-operation in many fields between member countries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take practical steps further to strengthen the Commonwealth by arranging for the Commonwealth Secretariat to take practical steps to reinvite Pakistan to become a member of the Commonwealth?

That is a matter for the Commonwealth as a whole. With regard to practical steps that we are taking to strengthen the Commonwealth, the hon. Gentleman may know that there is to be a meeting of Heads of Government on 29th April next year, in Jamaica, and our representatives at the United Nations and other international organisations have been instructed to consult their Commonwealth colleagues on every available occasion where interests are common.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether he has any evidence that any member of the Commonwealth wants us to get out of the Common Market? Does he think that relations with Zambia and Tanzania will do other than deteriorate, so long as we have British citizens imprisoned there without trial and without charges made against them for months on end?

With regard to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I have not asked members of the Commonwealth—[Interruption.]—I have not asked them whether they wish us to leave the European Community. That is a matter for the British people, and no one else, to decide. The British people will take this decision. I have naturally inquired, about the impact of the Community, and our entry, upon attitudes of Commonwealth countries, but I would not dream of asking Commonwealth countries whether we should remain a member of the Community, and I hope that hon. Gentlemen would not do so. It is for the British people to decide. They will be given the opportunity so to do.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the step which the last Government—of which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) was a member—took in joining the Common Market was the greatest blow against the whole principle of the Commonwealth that could have been struck?

There is no doubt that our entry into the the EEC has given a new perspective to a number of Com- monwealth countries. Some have diversified their trade as a result, and others look to the Community as being a wider means of access for their commodities. Like most of these matters, this truth is many-sided.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest progress in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

The conference has made some progress but more still remains to be done. We shall continue to work patiently and constructively with our Allies to obtain satisfactory results in all areas of the conference's work.

When does the right hon. Gentleman see the second stage of the conference coming to an end? Does he believe that the results so far achieved justify a summit meeting, such as the Soviet Union would like? What evidence has he of a more progressive attitude, particularly on the part of the Soviet Union, with regard to confidence-building and military activities with effective machinery for settling disputes and—perhaps most importantly—will he press for a freer movement of people and ideas between East and West?

With regard to the range of the second stage of the conference, I understand that a six-weeks' break has recently been agreed, and no doubt this will allow time for reflection by the participants. I then expect the conference to proceed well into the autumn. With regard to the level of the third stage, the participants have agreed that this should be decided before the end of the second stage. The level of the third stage depends upon the results that are achieved. Results have already been achieved in some areas, such as the inviolability of frontiers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is concern about the progress of the so-called Basket III? Has he discussed with Dr. Kissinger, the question whether Dr. Kissinger or President Nixon tried to see Dr. Sakharov in Moscow?

It is a little difficult to give straight replies on matters that I discussed with Dr. Kissinger. [Interruption.] I am not the only one concerned. I say to my hon. Friend, in order to try to give him a lead on this, that he may have noticed that the question of Basket III was fully discussed at the Ottawa Conference, when we agreed on the new NATO declaration, and the communiqué contained a number of references to it. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is considerable concern that we should make progress in these matters, and that is the desire of Her Majesty's Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on free movement, as guaranteed under the United Nations Charter of Human Rights? Does he agree that the imprisonment of my constituent, Miss Ballantine is entirely unjustified under that charter?

I would prefer not to comment on the case of Miss Ballantine at the moment, without looking at the details. As for the point about free movement, we cannot expect to overturn the philosophy and ethos of any of the members of this conference. The phrase that has been used is that there should be ' freer movement". It is a case of defining what that means. That seems to be at least some progress towards the objectives which the Government have in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the new Government of Portugal regarding the implementation of the United Nations sanctions resolution on Rhodesia.

I have discussed this matter with Dr. Soares.

Does my right hon. Friend think that the new Government in Portugal will have sufficient control of the new Government in Mozambique to stop up the loophole there? Will he also have talks with the Austrian Government about the alleged sanction-breaking activities of the Austrian State-owned steel company?

Rhodesia and Mozambique have close economic ties. The Portuguese Government are aware of the difficulties that arise here. I believe that it is their desire to assist our policy in Rhodesia, and I am satisfied that Dr. Soares should want to do so. I have some information about the Austrian matter. Perhaps my hon. Friend will table a Question so that I can give him a proper reply.

I have been trying to.

If we are to have ideological sanctions, would it not be better if they were directed against Uganda and African nationalist countries which are dictatorships?

We have to take a clear line on all these issues. I do not disagree with the hon. and learned Member. As for the failure of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) to get a Question past the Table, perhaps he and I can correspond on the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent negotiations on East-West security and co-operation and mutual arms reduction.

I dealt with the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in my answer to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) a few moments ago.

What is Britain doing to secure much better progress in mutual arms reduction? Since it would greatly benefit the economies of the East and the West, will my right hon. Friend consider supporting the compromise proposal made by the Eastern European countries recently that there should be proportionate reductions in arms, starting next year?

What the Warsaw Pact countries proposed was that there should be reductions by equal percentages. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members have taken the view that these reductions should in the first place be confined to the Soviet Union and American forces, and that they should then be followed by further reductions, involving other members. This is a technical question and it is not one on which I would want to depart from our present policy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the Soviet Union has been dragging its feet in these negotiations while building up its forces in Eastern Europe to an unprecedented level?

No, Sir; it is not my impression that the Soviet Union has been dragging its feet. It is perhaps true that it has put more emphasis on concluding the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. These questions of multilateral disarmament are extremely complicated. I believe that there is a genuine desire to examine them on their merits. Everyone knows that it is our desire to lessen the burden on the backs of our people, and I hope that it is the desire of other countries, too.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to develop and foster relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of China.

We attach great importance to the maintenance of good relations with the Chinese Government, and yesterday my right hon. Friend opened the Great Britain-China Centre in London. We look forward to continuing contacts at all levels between our two countries.

In the light of that answer, is it not a matter of satisfaction that the Chinese Government firmly support the European Economic Community and Britain's position in it—in contradistinction to the attitude of the USSR? Will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of talking to the Secretary of State for Defence to see whether positive steps forward may be made on the question of the sale of the Harrier aircraft to the Government of China?

The hon. Gentleman may be in some confusion about the nature of the referendum that has been suggested concerning the Common Market. It is not intended to be a world referendum, asking all nations to decide our future. It will be decided by the people of this country. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that no firm proposals have been put to the Government about the Harrier.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that both the Conservative and Liberal Parties are prepared for the Chinese Government or any Commonwealth Government to have a say on the question whether we should remain in the Common Market or come out, but they are reluctant to allow the people of this country the final decision?

That is my impression. On a number of occasions I have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister seeking to secure from the Leader of the Opposition an assurance that he believes that the people should have the right to decide this. My right hon. Friend has failed to get a satisfactory answer. We know where we stand. I believe that the British public will demand the right to a say in this matter and will not pay much respect to those parties which believe that those who sit in Westminster are always right.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with the Irish Republic.

Our relations with the Irish Republic are good. It is our wish and intention that they should remain so.

Is it right that this country should continue to be taken to task by the Irish Government at the European Court of Human Rights at Strasboug? Does this not impugn the whole honour of our security forces in Northern Ireland? Has the hon. Gentleman taken any action to press for this hostile motion to be dropped? Does he realise that this action, taken by the previous Irish Government, may greatly damage our relations with the present Irish Government?

This Government, like their predecessors, have continued vigorously to contest the allegations made by the Government of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman will know that even though the case is before the court there is opportunity for a friendly settlement. We continue to hope that the Irish Government will take that course of action. In the meantime we shall continue our vigorous denial of the allegations.

In the interests of the success of the Convention in the North, may I ask that our relations with the Irish Government be kept at a low profile?

There is a good deal to be said for that. I agree with that contention and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with it too, and act accordingly.

In view of the widespread concern in Dublin about the course of our negotiations with the rest of the European Community, will the hon. Member consider publishing a White Paper setting out the implications for Anglo-Irish trade if we were to withdraw from the Common Market?

When the time comes for the British people to decide whether we should remain a member of the Community, a White Paper considering all the implications of withdrawal will be produced. This will deal with our relationships with the Irish Republic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Comonwealth Affairs what official contact he has had with Ministers of the Government of South Africa.

So far, none, Sir; but we keep in touch as necessary through our respective representatives in Pretoria and London.

Would it not be as well if the Minister were to convey to the South African Government and to this House the Government's intentions about the Simonstown naval base? Will she explain why instructions were given to the Royal yacht publicly to sail past with a great deal of publicity? Was this not a piece of pure hypocrisy, coming at a time when the base is being used regularly by vessels of the Royal Navy and when those vessels operating on the Beira patrol are regularly serviced at Simonstown? Will the hon. Lady take the opportunity at some future date of explaining to the South African Government the need for the maintenance of the Simonstown base in the interests of the development of British shipping'?

As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the Simonstown Agreement continues in operation. As he must also be aware, the whole question of our defence is under review. If we foresee any changes as a result of that review, and any changes in the Simonstown Agreement, the House will naturally be informed as soon as that takes place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to hold coordinated discussions with the EEC Foreign Ministers on the Middle East.

At a meeting in Bonn on 10th June my right hon. Friend and his colleagues approved proposals for a dialogue with the Arabs elaborated in the political co-operation machinery of the Nine. These proposals envisage the development of economic and technical co-operation between the Europeans and the Arabs, whether or not they are producers of oil.

May I take it that the Minister feels that we are more likely to influence progress towards peace in the Middle East by means of a concerted European approach than by acting on our own? Will he say what action the Common Market Powers, as well as the British Government, are taking to influence those Powers taking part in the Geneva Conference on the Middle East towards a European viewpoint?

No. I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the intention of the European-Arab dialogue. The intention is to consider a number of mutually important matters concerning, for example, industry, agriculture, raw materials and transport. The dialogue is not concerned with the establishment of a peace settlement, which might in some ways cut across the initiative of Dr. Kissinger. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend gave his approval to the extension of the dialogue, he was specific that nothing done by the Nine should in any way prejudice other peace negotiations. That must remain our policy.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the dialogue must not depend to any degree on the compliance or consent of the United States of America?

I think that my hon. Friend describes attitudes in this instance in unnecessarily crude terms. Clearly, there must be a proper partnership between the EEC and the United States of America in matters of mutual interest. Clearly, there must be a proper relationship between Members of the EEC. I do not think that a matter of prevention or exclusion comes into such negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of his talks regarding the renegotiation of the terms of entry into the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next discuss the renegotiation of our terms of entry to the EEC with the Council of Ministers

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

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

We are pursuing our objectives on several fronts in the appropriate Council meetings. I expect intensive negotiations to get under way in the autumn.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend his intensive negotiations to be compartmentalised in the four areas that he has singled out, or will he pursue them in parallel? Does the link that he has made between them and other matters at present under discussion within the Community mean that the process will necessarily be slowed up while those other matters are discussed?

I think that they will proceed in parallel in a compartmentalised direction. [Interruption.] I tried to understand the question, and that was my interpretation of it. With regard to the pace at which negotiations proceed, they certainly cannot hang fire, and it would be reasonable to assume that they will begin to speed up as the autumn leaves begin to fall.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that he should give some more specific details about the timetable of the negotiations? Does he not feel that the negotiations should be concluded within the next 6–12 months? Above all, will he give the House an assurance that this issue will not be fudged, and that the British people will have a clear opportunity to state whether they wish to stay in the Common Market or come out?

The nature of the timing has still to be decided. I have already given my views on that matter in a personal capacity in so far as I am able to do so. I share my hon. Friend's view that the issue must neither be fudged nor unduly delayed. I think that the question must be clear and capable of a clear answer.

Now that the right hon. Gentleman has had some months of experience of negotiating in Brussels, if he comes to the conclusion that the systems in use in Brussels allow him by continuous negotiation to make gradual improvements, will he accept that position instead of trying to get one massive agreement simply because that is the only way to refer it to a referendum?

There were certain objectives contained in the manifesto on which we fought the General Election and on which we became the Government. At a suitable time, and not too distantly, we must come to a conclusion on those objectives and present our conclusion to the British people.

In the course of renegotiation, has my right hon. Friend discussed the proposals now going forward from the the Commission to the Council of Ministers of the EEC which, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, have

"policy implications for United Kingdom sovereignty over our indigenous energy resources"?

We certainly do not intend to set up State corporations of the kind that are proposed and then to surrender them to some other body.

The answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) was generalised in the extreme. Will he tell the House in his official capacity, as opposed to his personal capacity, how long he has in mind for renegotiation? Where does the continuous negotiation begin that one can expect between countries within the Treaty of Rome, and where does the renegotiation end? Will he make that position clear?

These are fair questions and I am bending my mind to them. The Government will have to reach conclusions on these matters. When they have done so—I hope that that will not be too far in the distant future—they will be communicated to the hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the White Paper which will follow the conclusion of the negotiations there will be, first, a statement on the progress of negotiations and the conclusions thereof, secondly, a statement of the Government's opinion on the outcome of the negotiations and, thirdly, a statement of the alternative, even though the Government may not wish to recommend it, if we ceased to be a member of the EEC?

I shall bear these matters in mind. As yet we are rather a long way from preparing a White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has had with the United States Government about Great Britain's future in the European Community.

None, Sir. But as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) on 19th June, we are in close and constant touch with the United States Government on matters of common concern, and they are well aware of our position.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the recent statement of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that the United States wants us to remain a member of the Community?

I understand that that was the impression that my right hon. Friend obtained when he was in Washington six weeks ago. That was also the impression that I obtained when I was in Washington a week before. Let me repeat for the third time this afternoon, as we may have to repeat again, that the ultimate decision does not lie in Washington but in Great Britain, and that it is the British people who must decide.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, whilst he may not be able to have consultations with everybody about this matter, as it must finally be decided by the British people it would be as well, in view of the need to get the matter hurried along, for him to consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, who revealed to the House on Monday that after only a few months' membership of the EEC we are running a current trade deficit of £2,000 million? In view of that deficit, does my hon. Friend agree that there is a need to get on with the job as quickly as possible, so that the Labour Party Conference can frame the appropriate resolution?

I agree that there is everything to be said for making as speedy progress as is possible with renegotiations. That is in the interests of Great Britain and the rest of the Community. My hon. Friend will understand that as we are negotiating in good faith—which means negotiating with the hope and determination to remain a member of the Community—this is not a matter that can be hurried. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want a slipshod renegotiation which would end up less fundamental than the manifesto of my party prophesied. There has to be serious and perhaps prolonged negotiation.

Is the Minister mindful that the United States Government and other Governments are attending the Law of the Sea Conference at Caracas, which will end in the middle of our recess? Will it not be dangerous for the fishermen of Scotland and England if, after the conference, States do not wait for ratification but make pronouncements claiming large chunks of the sea? For instance, Norway may claim a 50-mile limit. In the Common Market renegotiations we have not taken into account the interests of fishermen. Will the hon. Gentleman alter that situation as from now, with a view to protecting our fishermen?

I have told the hon. Lady on at least two previous occasions that we have a derogation from the Community on fishing policy until the end of this decade. This question is, therefore, not applicable to EEC business. If the hon. Lady wishes to ask a question about the Law of the Sea Conference, she must put it down.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it has yet been decided in what form the Government intend to consult the British people at the conclusion of the period of renegotiation.

No, Sir.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many people who find it incomprehensible that he is still unable to answer this question believe that the Government have no intention either of holding a referendum or of taking us out of the EEC, and regard this whole matter as a squalid party political manoeuvre?

Sir, in the immortal words of one of my predecessors, if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything.

Will the Foreign Secretary accept that we have all but said that we shall have a referendum on this issue, and that many of us believe that the last element of doubt should be removed by the Government's saying categorically that we shall have a referendum?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of these considerations, which are very much in our minds now. I undertake that clear answers will be given, perhaps a little sooner than some hon. Gentlemen opposite might like.

I accept that the Foreign Secretary is right when he says that we shall have to wait to see how the situation develops, but will he confirm that while Parliament is still regarded in our constitution as the sovereign representative of the people there could be no decision on a form of referendum until the Government have presented the necessary legislation to Parliament?

If and when we have proposals for that we shall come forward with them. What is quite clear—I shall say it again for as many times as hon. Gentlemen care to put the Question down—is that it is the British people who will declare on this matter, through the ballot box. When the Government are ready to say more, they will announce their intentions.

Does the Foreign Secretary recollect that in an earlier statement on this subject he made clear that in the event of failure to secure the renegotiation terms that Britain had asked for the question of withdrawal from the Community would be on the agenda? Will that question be included in any referendum or in any discussion or consultation with the British people prior to their decision? The question of withdrawal may be the most important factor.

Yes, Sir, I agree that that is a very important consideration, which I am examining carefully at the moment.

In reply to the supplementary question put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), the Foreign Secretary said that proposals would be put before the House. He did not quite say—at least, I did not understand him to say—that a referendum would require legislation. Is that not so?

That is quite right. I did not say that.

Question 37, Mr. Blaker.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether that is the case?

rose—

Order. I have already called Question 37.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss present policy towards the EEC with other European Foreign Ministers.

My right hon. Friend will be attending a Foreign Ministers' Council in Brussels next week. On 19th July he will have talks in Paris with the French Foreign Minister and on 26th July in London with the Belgian Foreign Minister. Policy towards the EEC will, of course, be covered in these bilateral discussions.

Although truth may be many-sided, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we hope the Foreign Secretary will not be so—or at least not too much so? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Foreign Secretary said in 1967 that if we were members of the Community it would be healthier for Britain, a gain for Europe and advantageous to the whole world? Will he urge his right hon. Friend to stand four-square on that position?

I do not think my right hon. Friend needs any urging. My right hon. Friend and all of us on the Government Front Bench are committed to the terms of the manifesto on which we fought the General Election. That manifesto talked about renegotiation of a fundamental sort, and since then we have talked about that renegotiation being carried out in good faith. That is and remains our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking in the course of the process of renegotiation to encourage the establishment of a European Regional Fund.

The Regional Development Fund does not form part of renegotiation. We are willing to take part in further talks on it in the Community. As I told the House on 26th June, discussions about the fund are continuing at official level, aimed at identifying what prospects there are for progress.—[Vol. 875, c. 1570.]

Has the hon. Gentleman seen the speech which was made by one of the British Commissioners, Mr. George Thomson, in which he expressed concern about the delay in setting up the Regional Development Fund and said how helpful it would be if the British Government would make clear that the fund was an essential part of a Community of which Britain remained a member? Why do not the British Government make a statement on those lines now?

I saw the speech, and I share Mr. Thomson's hope that quick progress will be made with the Regional Development Fund and with matters concerning a regional policy for the Community. The British Government, like any Government renegotiating the terms of membership or simply remaining in the Community, have to take decisions on the fund and regional policy which are in the best interests of the people of this country. Therefore, examination of the fund proposal has to be a detailed and, I fear, protracted business, and there is no alternative to that.

Does my hon. Friend recall that the document on the Regional Development Fund which we recently debated in the House makes quite clear that, whilst the fund is supposed to be auxiliary to member States' own resources, it shall be based on criteria and that its objective shall be towards furthering economic and monetary union? As we have made some reservations on that policy, should not we make similar reservations on the document which the House has debated?

We have made clear time after time that we hope and expect that the Community will apply criteria for regional policy which are in conformity with the regional policy that the Government wish and intend to operate. I have no doubt that that will continue to be our policy.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Transport House study group, under the chairmanship of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, said that it was important that the advantages accruing to Britain from Common Market membership should be played down? Will he also advise the House why the Secretary of State for Industry took over as commissar supervising European affairs?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman regards that as a serious contribution to the European debate. I do not.

Does the Minister agree that one of the principal factors which caused the House to vote in favour of membership of the Common Market was the Regional Development Fund, which would benefit Wales, Scotland and the North-East? That proposal never went through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the country which will have to make the biggest contribution to the fund is Germany, and that Germany has made perfectly clear that she is not prepared to bail Britain out? In those circumstances, in answering the supplementary question put to him by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), will my hon. Friend say what advantages have so far accrued to Britain as the result of membership of the EEC?

It is not a matter of bailing Britain out. If the Community is to be effective, the more prosperous areas within the Community must give economic assistance to the least prosperous areas, or the least prosperous areas within member nations. Regional policy makes that possible. The advantages of membership come under two headings—greater political influence and potential greater economic strength.

In his original answer to the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), is the Minister saying that there is no reason why agreement on the Regional Development Fund should not be concluded before the conclusion of the renegotiations?

Some aspects of the Regional Development Fund have to form part of the renegotiation. We have said that we need substantial alterations to the budgetary régime. How much goes into or comes out of the fund has an influence on our attitude towards our budgetary contribution, so the two things are very much connected. On the other hand, it is not the case, as is constantly implied and sometimes written in British newspapers, that because of our renegotiations we are intentionally and wilfully holding up progress in this area. We are not.