asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representation he has made to the South African Government on the future role of the Simonstown Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Government policy on the Simonstown Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Anglo-South African Simonstown Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the South African Government on the future of the Simonstown Agreement.

The naval arrangements arising from the Simonstown Agreement are being reviewed and we shall report to the House in due course.

What consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had in this respect with Commonwealth leaders, and what views have been represented to Her Majesty's Government by Commonwealth leaders in the Far East?

It is not customary to disclose that kind of information, but, of course, it would be my desire that there should be consultations with all those primarily concerned. That is one reason why discussions will begin shortly.

In these negotiations, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that the maintenance of good relations with South Africa could play a significant part in bringing about a settlement with Rhodesia, which is very important?

The attitude of South Africa towards Rhodesia has always been that it is not her problem and that she refuses to intervene in the affairs of other countries. For that reason, I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's hypothesis is correct. Even if it were, our relations with South Africa could be very much improved by a change in her domestic policies.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation is that, over the years, we have had an increasingly marginal military benefit from the agreement and that, against that, we have paid heavy political costs, especially in relation to the black countries of Africa? If it is true that the United States and other Western Governments are concerned that we should retain our military facilities at Simonstown, would not it be better for one of those Government to take over the military asset and political odium of retaining those facilities?

My hon. Friend sums up the position perfectly in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, I have no indication that the French Government or the United States Government have the slightest desire to take on this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the number of Soviet ship-days in the Indian Ocean has increased fourfold in the past three years? Will he confirm that one of the parties whom he will be consulting is the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic? Finally, will he say which African countries actually objected to the Simonstown Agreement?

I cannot confirm that we shall be consulting SACLANT. This is not within his sphere of responsibility. We shall take account of all the necessary considerations, balancing—as I said at Cardiff on 25th October—the political disadvantages, which are great, against the military advantages, which are small.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me, without complacency, that the Soviet Navy does not carpet the Indian Ocean from wall to wall and that there are many Commonwealth leaders who share his and my opinion that a significant breakthrough could be made in our relations with Rhodesia with South African assistance but that the only way to secure that assistance is by showing South Africa that we really mean business on racialism?

My hon. Friend referred to the Soviet Navy. There has been penetration by all navies over the past 12 months and, indeed, earlier. But some of the reports are seen to be grossly exaggerated when they are looked at in detail. As for South Africa's position in relation to Rhodesia, I repeat what I said before, which is that I believe that South Africa will judge her position in relation to Rhodesia in her own interests and will take what steps she considers necessary.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Simonstown Agreement cannot be terminated unilaterally? Does he agree that it is of importance not just to us but to our allies, and does he agree, also, that a strong allied naval presence is essential both in the South Atlantic and in the Indian Ocean and that British naval forces should remain part of it?

According to the last clause, the agreement is terminable by mutual consent, but, as it involves a number of considerations which affect both countries, it is proper that there should be discussions between both countries. We shall continue to do that. As regards the presence of the Royal Navy or of any other navy in the South Atlantic, the right hon. and learned Gentleman might address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, because it is clearly part of the defence review.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Gov- ernment's policy has changed regarding the withdrawal from all relationships resulting from the Simonstown Agreements and the termination of all military exchanges, visits and technical arrangements; and what discussions have been held within NATO for extending its activities south of the Tropic of Cancer.

My hon. Friend knows that we are reviewing the naval arrangements arising from the Simonstown Agreement. Studies are made of the possible need to protect allied shipping lanes beyond the NATO area, but there has been no suggestion that the Alliance's treaty obligations should be extended beyond the Tropic of Cancer.

Was there not a United Nations report earlier this year to the effect that Admiral Cousins had been instructed to study military collaboration between NATO and the South African Government, which is contrary to what the Foreign Secretary has just mentioned; namely, that NATO is limited to areas north of the Tropic of Cancer? Would not such involvement between Britain or NATO and the South African Government be deeply resented by the British Labour movement?

I am responsible for the whole of Government policy in this matter, to the Labour movement and beyond. I do not know Admiral Cousins, or of any studies that he has made. I repeat what I said in my original answer to my hon. Friend: studies have been made, but there is no commitment on the part of NATO members to engage collectively or individually in activities outside the NATO area.

Does the Foreign Secretary not yet realise that, in view of the imperative need for Britain to be able to export to every counry in the world, it is absolutely monstrous for him to indulge his liking for or dislike of the internal policy of other countries and to base his foreign policy on that? That is absolute nonsense, and he must know it.

If the hon. Gentleman continues in this way he will be rivalling the new Shadow Leader of the House. I suggest that he carries his studies a little further, and more broadly.

Why not join the Left?

The day that I do that they will welcome me as somebody returning to the fold. I do not think that is likely to happen for some time. I beg the hon. Gentleman to come up to date with some of his studies on the changing pattern of events in Africa. He may then find that the attitude that he used to adopt in 1945 is a little outdated.

May we take it from what my right hon. Friend said that the British Government will oppose any future proposal for the extension of the NATO sphere of influence to the South Atlantic? We know that studies have taken place and many hon. Members on the Government benches would feel happier if my right hon. Friend would repudiate any suggestion that we will support them in any way whatsoever.

There is no suggestion to this effect now. I do not propose to discuss hypothetical questions which have not arisen, and as far as I know there is no intention that they should arise.

The Foreign Secretary is right in saying that NATO activities are limited to the North Atlantic. Will he now answer the question that I put to him earlier and confirm that in certain events our allies have a direct interest in the terms of the Simonstown Agreement?

I cannot confirm that, because I do not know the answer. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to put down a Question. I am not aware, from recollection, that the Simonstown Agreement covers allied navies, except in one particular—namely, where, by permission of both Governments, they are entitled to use certain facilities. I think that is the limit of the interest. I should prefer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to put down a detailed Question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to maintain diplomatic and economic relations with South Africa and to adhere to the Simonstown Agreement.

We shall continue to have businesslike dealings with South Africa. As to Simonstown, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) earlier today.

I welcome that reply by the Foreign Secretary. Just as trade used to follow the flag, is it not at least quite likely that trade in future may follow a country's security? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that he will at least weigh that in the balance when considering the Simonstown Agreement? Whilst Simonstown exists, does he not think it a little petty to criticise British sailors visiting South Africa because they do not engage in social apartheid?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with me. I have never made any comments on that kind of thing. Having once served on the lower deck, I regard it as too trivial to bother about. [Interruption.] I regard it as too trivial to bother about. I hope that the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) is not getting deaf as well as lacking understanding. I regard these as minor issues. I have always been concerned with the broad question of what our policies should be regarding Simonstown and our relations with South Africa. What the hon. Gentleman has said in the first part of his supplementary question could be argued both ways. I am not sure that I would go all the way with him in what he has said.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Cape trading route is probably the furthest from any current Soviet naval base? Does he agree that as long as we maintain our base or some kind of connection there it is a big incentive for the Soviets to establish a base in the area as well?

We should try to avoid assuming that other nations necessarily react to what we do. Both South Africa, in relation to her attitude to Rhodesia, and the USSR, in relation to its presence in the Indian Ocean, will make their own decisions in their own interests. It is for us to consider that against our future defence policy.

If it is the right hon. Gentleman's policy to continue with the Beira patrol, how will it be serviced without the Simonstown base and how will the fleet auxiliary tankers operate without Simonstown?

That is a question for the Secretary of State for Defence, but I can promise the hon. Gentleman that it has not been ignored.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government to obtain compensation for British citizens who suffered damage and loss to their properties through the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the result of the discussions between the Consul at Nicosia and the District Officer in Kyrenia about the safety of British property in Kyrenia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure restitution of property and compensation for damage suffered by British residents living in that part of Cyprus now under Turkish occupation.

We have made repeated representations to the Turkish authorities about the protection of British-owned property in Cyprus and have reserved the rights of United Kingdom citizens to claim compensation. Following my right hon. Friend's talks with Mr. Denktash, the Cypriot Vice-President, we hope that the situation will improve.

I thank the Minister of State for that answer and, indeed, for the written information that he sent to me prior to tabling this Question. Is he aware of the size of the problem? It seems as though thousands of British residents, many of them retired, are facing actual or potential loss in Cyprus. Does he agree that the Turkish Government bear a special responsibility in this matter? Finally, will he seek to amend the Treaty of Guarantee so that the protection presently afforded to officially-owned British property is extended to privately-owned British property?

I accept that this is a problem of substantial proportions. Both the Foreign Secretary and I insist that the Turkish authorities in Cyprus have a substantial obligation to protect these properties and we have been reminding them of that obligation for a very long time.

As the Treaty of Guarantee deals with security, will the Minister of State tell the owners of property in Cyprus what he feels the treaty and the Government are ensuring?

I am anxious not to make any claims in this House, or publicly, that the Government cannot fulfil. As the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall) rightly pointed out, this is a problem of substantial proportions. It is so great in numbers that it is not possible to obtain consular access or protection for every British property on the island. Much as we regret that state of affairs, that is the fact. We are determined to exercise what control and protection is possible, but I believe that it would be wrong of me to make claims which were not realisable.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is an urgent problem inasmuch as quite a large number of elderly people are living in distress and sometimes fear? Will he get from the Turkish authorities at least an undertaking that looting and trespass by their troops will be punished, that compensation will be paid for damage for which they are responsible, and that it is their general aim in the part of the island that they occupy to make a return to normal life as soon as possible?

We have urged all these propositions on the Turkish Government and on the leader of the Turkish community in Cyprus. I regret that the looting to which the hon. Gentleman referred is still taking place in the Kyrenia area. It would be wrong to pretend that that was no longer the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Secretary and our many representatives abroad are doing their best to urge upon the Turkish Government the obligations that they ought to fulfil. I promise that we will continue to do so.

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

I hope to do so on Friday next, when the House will have an opportunity to debate the continuation in force of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965.

Will my right hon. Friend have talks with the new Frelimo Government of Mozambique to try to persuade them to obey the United Nations sanctions resolution?

Yes. Of course, the Portuguese are still the authority. We have had a number of discussions with the Portuguese Government and established contact with the new Frelimo Government. We shall certainly pursue that contact along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend. I recognise, as I always have, that some of these newly emerging countries have great difficulty with their economic life and relations with both Rhodesia and South Africa. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that the Frelimo Government will want to do all that they can.

May we have an absolute assurance from the Foreign Secretary that there was no special behind-the-scenes agreement to have the debate on Rhodesia on a Friday?

I have no idea.

Will he ask his right hon. Friend?

As far as I know, the sanctions have to be renewed by 12th November.

Why a Friday?

It is not for me to say why a Friday; it is for the Leader of the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be in his place and will stay all day and take part in the debate if he is fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common- wealth Affairs if he will pay an official visit to South Africa.

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

I have no plans to visit South Africa.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that both President Kaunda and Mr. Vorster have made complimentary remarks about each other's speeches in the last three weeks? Does he agree that if the British Government were now to change their attitude towards South Africa it could well jeopardise the developing relationship between Zambia and South Africa?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard my reply to the last question, but I would not base too much on the exchange of complimentary speeches, otherwise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment would have marched through the same lobby as the Shadow Leader of the House last night.

Is not the fact that the present Government of South Africa were open and avowed admirers of Adolf Hitler another reason for Ministers in the present British Government not going there, since it might offend the susceptibilities of that Fascist Government?

If I thought that it would be of use, I would go anywhere, but I do not think that a visit at this stage would be of any value.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that we regret that he will not be going to South Africa in the near future because we see in him signs of learning from such visits—for example, his conversion to British membership of the EEC? If he were to undertake such a visit in the near future, he could visit other countries in Africa and come back and tell us whether he finds the South African régime any less liberal than that of Uganda or of any other tribal and military dictatorship in Africa. Why should he be so particular about picking on South Africa and not on them?

Certainly it is not for me to defend the régime in Uganda, and I do not do so. But there is the particular problem of apartheid in South Africa, and I think that the hon. Gentleman recognises it. In conjunction with all the other members of the United Nations we have had to take steps to try to change the policy of apartheid which, in my view, is likely to lead to chaos and anarchy in the southern part of Africa and to an extension of Communism in that part of the world. Quite apart from the moral and human issues involved, it is our policy to continue to say to South Africa that if she wants good relations with us, as distinct from businesslike relations, we expect a change in this policy.

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

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

There is nothing I can add at present to what I said in the House of Commons on 30th October and in my speech at Cardiff on 25th October.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, following the recent visit of British naval forces to South Africa, the South African Government made blatant political capital out of it and sought to get prestige and repectability on the international scene that they did not warrant? Will he assure us that, first of all, the Beira patrol will not be jeopardised as a consequence of the closure of Simonstown and, second, that whatever decision is taken by the Government there will be full acceptance of collective responsibility for that decision?

I can give the assurance about the Beira patrol because the ending of the Simonstown Agreement would not necessarily involve that at all, and the patrol would continue. On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, of course I give every assurance at all times, on all occasions, for all purposes.

If the right hon. Gentleman really wishes to improve relations with South Africa, would it not be a good idea if he changed the answer that he gave a moment ago and planned to make a visit there, so that he could see for himself what the problems of that country really are? Would it not be a good idea if he took with him some of the 99 of his colleagues on the benches behind him who have signed a critical motion but of whom none, so far as I am aware, have been to that country since they became Members of Parliament?

I can only repeat what I said earlier: at present I do not think that a visit by me to South Africa would be helpful to anyone, so I must reserve the right to go there when I think that it will be most helpful to this country.

rose—

On a point of order. The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) is quite wrong in his supposition.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the South African Government has every reason to be extremely grateful to this country for her vote to keep South Africa in the United Nations—a vote to which I have no objection? May I express the hope that in undertaking to vote in that way on that issue, the Foreign Secretary may have secured some undertaking from the South African Government about her policies, in particular towards Rhodesia and Namibia, and, perhaps, her own racial policies?

I would not want to give my hon. Friend that impression. No undertakings were sought or received from South Africa. The decision on the vote was taken on entirely different principles. However, I certainly think that South Africa is aware, from the result of the vote, that considerable changes in her policies will be needed during the next 12 months if she is not to face an even more difficult situation when the United Nations meet next time.

In his consultation with foreign Governments over the ending of the Simonstown Agreement, has the right hon. Gentleman held discussions with the French Government to ascertain in what way they intend to fill our place in South Africa, particularly in the realms of defence equipment and trade?

I am not aware of any proposal by the French Government to fill our place in South Africa and I have not had any consultations with them.

As one who has signed the motion to which the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) referred, and who has visited South Africa, may I ask my right hon. Friend, having met many of his staff in South Africa, what information they passed on to him about the likely propaganda use to which the South African Government would put a British naval visit?

With respect, I do not think that I should disclose any advice that I receive from officials. It is for me to take responsibility for the decisions that are made. But as we have now spent a long time on this problem, let me say to the House as a whole that I think that hon. Members will find that the benefits from the Simonstown Agreement, whatever they may be, and the consequences of giving it up, whatever may flow, will not loom very large against the defence review, as a whole, which is being conducted.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he said earlier—that our relations with South Africa could be improved by an improvement in their domestic policies, which I hope can soon be brought about—but would he apply the same thinking elsewhere, for example, to our relations with the Soviet Union with reference to their treatment of ethnic minorities such as Jews and Ukrainians within their country? Should we not apply a uniform and comprehensive standard in these matters of human rights?

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman cares to put down a Question about that, I will answer it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—even if his hon. Friends do not wish me to. But this afternoon I shall only repeat what he knows—that answers have been given on this matter more than once by me and my hon. Friends in the past, in which we have drawn the Soviet Government's attention from this Dispatch Box and in other ways to the difficulties which are caused to an improvement in relations by some of their activities in this direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South African occupation of Namibia; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to accept the opinion of the International Court on the illegality of the occupation of Namibia by South Africa.

I expect to be in a position to give a definite reply shortly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope that regard will be paid to what we as a party have committed ourselves to, namely, that we accept the opinion of the International Court that the régime in Namibia is an illegal one. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the system of apartheid, which he has so recently condemned, is being extended in Namibia, that this is an international territory, and that we should recognise the rôle of the United Nations in it?

Without anticipating the statement which I hope to make later, may I say now that our aim is self-determination and independence for the people of Namibia? We are anxious to play our part in the international community in helping to bring that about. Apart from that, I note what my hon. Friend has said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we hope that "shortly" means shortly, since the advisory opinion was handed down three years ago and has since been endorsed by the Security Council and the General Assembly, and that our equivocal position does no good to Britain's standing in Africa as a whole?

Perhaps it will help my hon. Friend if I say "quite shortly".

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 what further progress has been made in mutual arms reduction.

The CSCE discussions in Geneva have proceeded more slowly than we would have liked. But we continue to look forward to an early and successful conclusion to the conference.

Is not my hon. Friend very concerned about the extreme slowness of the discussions? In view of Britain's minimal contribution to Western defence, in spite of the enormous burden of defence costs on the British people, does he not feel that it is perhaps time to consider further extensive cuts in Britain's defence spending?

My hon. Friend's supplementary question confuses two issues. The first is the progress of the European security conference and the MBFR talks. The Government are anxious that progress should be made in that matter, but we are also anxious that the outcome should be satisfactory and successful. It may be that a successful outcome requires us to proceed slowly. Certainly all members of Her Majesty's Government agree that reductions need to be made in the burden of defence spending. Some of them will be in the defence review when it is announced to the House and to the country later this year. On the other hand, the MBFR and CSCE talks have to make progress on a complementary and parallel basis to that, and it would not be in the interests of détente or of this country if we were to try to proceed with those too quickly.

What progress is being made in the most important section of the CSCE talks, namely, persuading the Soviet Union to allow greater and freer movement of people and ideas across frontiers?

Basket 3, which is the colloquial and ugly term for it, is the area of major controversy and difficulty. I take the view, as do the Government, that we have to make progress in that area for the conference to be successful. There is a need to make progress there, and I am anxious that we should succeed rather than move quickly. Those two matters must be reconciled.

Will the defence cuts involve a cut in nuclear expenditure? May we have a clear and straight answer to that?

I am sure that it will be clear when the defence review is announced later this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet President Clerides of Cyprus.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, although he remains in touch with Mr. Clerides and is ready, at all times, to meet him.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the continued occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkish occupation forces is looking increasingly permanent? Is he aware of the recent announcement made by Turkish authorities that they will refuse to allow Greek refugees to return to their homes in the northern part of the island? Will he make the strongest possible representations to the Turkish Government, pointing out that Britain has no intention of forgetting her responsibility as guarantor of the integrity of Cyprus as a sovereign independent State?

We have said time and again, and I am happy to repeat, that we believe that the territorial integrity and peaceful existence of Cyprus must be preserved and reconstituted. It would not help towards that end if I were to comment or make a judgment on the likelihood of a permanent Turkish occupation. But it is equally certain that progress towards the end which the hon. Gentleman and I seek is most likely to come about in the short term if the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus continue their discussions and, when the time seems ripe, a Geneva-like conference is again convened. Regrettably, that time has not yet arrived, but my right hon. Friend will be available to take part and play a major rôle in those discussions when the time seems appropriate.

Does my hon. Friend not accept that many of us on the Government benches would not be very happy if part of the settlement of the Cyprus situation or part of the defence review were to include the abandonment of our base facilities simply for them to be taken over by the United States of America?

I certainly accept that, because my hon. Friend tells me that it is so. As for the details of the defence review, he must await the announcement by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will conduct a review of relations with all independent countries which in his opinion fail to observe the standards of democracy and the rule of law which he applied in deciding to hold a review of relations with South Africa.

No, Sir. Our relations with all countries are conducted, and reconsidered when necessary, in the light of British interests.

As the Foreign Secretary and others have made it clear today that the privilege of economic and social, let alone military, association with the United Kingdom is to depend upon very strict conformity with or observance of the United Nations Charter of Human Rights, will the hon. Gentleman make it clear on what grounds he discriminates between the alleged moral deficiencies of apartheid—[HON. MEMBERS: "Alleged?"] Yes, alleged—and the moral deficiencies of the other 70 so-called régimes in the United Nations, all of whom accept, perhaps in some cases only, patterns of political, legal and moral performance which are inferior to those of South Africa? We are entitled to know.

Her Majesty's Government are opposed to the violation of human rights wherever they occur. The Prime Minister made that clear in the House on 13th June and the Foreign Secretary made it equally clear in the House on 27th March. Our policy on this matter and our attitude to it is not in question. Equally, we believe that all those régimes about which the hon. Gentleman speaks should be in the United Nations: we apply the policy of universality to them. However, on the hon. Gentleman's comments on apartheid in South Africa, if he does not understand the depth of detestation on this side of the House for all forms of racialism, and particularly the form practised in South Africa, he understands neither the Government nor the Labour Party.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government supports the efforts of the Sultan of Oman to suppress the rebellion in Dhofar; and if he will make a statement.

We continue to support the efforts of the Sultan of Oman against the Dhofar rebels, who constitute a threat to the security of both Oman and the Gulf.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the revolt in Dhofar began against one of the most tyrannical and horrible despots in the post-war world? Will he confirm that British forces have been seconded there, that the British Government have acquiesced in the arrival of thousands of Iranian troops there, who have burned villages, destroyed wells, killed off many of the stock animals, and done tremendous damage? Is this not in danger of becoming Britain's Vietnam? Are our hands clean—

Order. That is enough to be going on with.

There were certainly many features of the Government of Oman, to which my hon. Friend refers as being reprehensible, about which I share his views, but, with great respect, I believe that in some respects those views are overstated. There is another side to the question, which I hope that he will also accept. That is, first, that the revolt is, in part—and in large part —organised from outside that country. Therefore, Britain has obligations to a country with which we have a treaty of defence and solidarity. Secondly, the participation of Iranian forces, while much overstated by my hon. Friend, is essentially a matter for them and not something which my hon. Friend ought legitimately to describe as being the subject of British acquiescence.

Will the Minister pay tribute to the Sultan's efforts in bringing democracy to his country, and to the Sultan's forces, including those British members seconded or on contract to those forces, for defeating a Communist-inspired invasion from South Yemen?

There is no doubt that there have been improvements in the way that the Sultan of Oman runs affairs in that country. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and certainly my hon. Friends, would agree that there has been room for that improvement, and the improvement was most welcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations in the EEC.

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

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

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

I would refer the hon. Member to the report on the progress of renegotiation which my right hon. Friend made on 30th October in the course of his speech during the debate on the Address.

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent statements by the Director-General of the FAO, by the group of international experts led by Lady Jackson, by Dr. Kissinger and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the effect that the world faces a lasting world food shortage? Does that not make it clear that it is probable that a situation will continue in which we are able to obtain our food supplies more cheaply inside the EEC than outside it?

It would be unfortunate if the statements to which the hon. Gentleman refers were simply interpreted and analysed in terms of the cost of food in Britain when, very largely, they were concerned with the poverty of the Third World and the prospects of famine there. However, as for the facts, let me confirm that while a year ago it was assessed that membership of the EEC might produce an increase in the retail price index of between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent., it is now the judgment of the statisticians that our access to the EEC will marginally keep down the price of food in Britain.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon Tate and Lyle announced that there will be no sugar in this country after February, and that there will be a likely shortfall next year of 1·7 million tons? Therefore, does not my hon. Friend consider that there is a very strong case for inserting 1·7 million tons, or thereabouts, as a figure for renegotiation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, so that we can now fulfil the arrangement thrown away by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in 1971?

I have been sceptical about the judgments of Tate and Lyle ever since 1950. I suspect that my hon. Friend shares that view. Concerning the figure for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, I confirmed to him in the House on Monday, and I hope to confirm to him in another place tomorrow evening, that the Government are deeply committed to the 1·4 million tons formula and will continue to press for that in the Council of Ministers.

Is it still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make a collective recommendation to the British people on the outcome of these negotiations?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who normally follows the Prime Minister's activities with such care, does not realise that the Prime Minister answered a question on this subject yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is great concern about his recent statement that there is not to be a decision on British membership until October next year? Does he not agree that there is need to speed up this matter and not slow it down, because already the British people have suffered enough from the disruption of their food supplies and there is now an urgent need to enter into long-term agreements with the Commonwealth and other suppliers and to safeguard the food of the British people.

With great respect, I do not believe that anyone who reads HANSARD rather than the Daily Mail believes that there is any doubt about the answer that I gave—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who is, I understand, happy about the answer which I gave about the timetable. At the time of the General Election the Government promised—a promise which we shall keep—that the British people will be enabled to make a judgment on membership of the EEC within a year from the election, which takes us until October 1975. If a judgment is possible before that time, the Government are anxious to bring that decision forward. That is the final day, and not the earliest day. It is as simple as that.

If the results of the renegotiations are put to a referendum of the people, will the Government study most carefully the excellent precedent for a referendum set by the previous Conservative administration over Northern Ireland, of which the then Prime Minister said quite clearly that the position in Northern Ireland would not be changed without the consent of the people? Will the Minister also bear in mind the very wise words of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, that it would be wrong to belong to the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the people? Does not "full-hearted consent" mean something more than "consent", and, therefore, may we assume that the Government would interpret that as at least a 66 per cent. vote in favour of membership?

I think that the Government are very anxious to fulfil the Leader of the Opposition's promise about full-hearted consent. We intend to do that on his behalf. Concerning the details of the referendum—if it is to be a referendum—there is nothing one can say which would give more detailed information until the final decisions on the form of consultation are taken. About that form my right hon. Friend said something in the debate on the Queen's Speech earlier this week, and I have nothing to add to that.

Will the Minister tell us anything at all about the renegotiation of the EEC common fisheries policy, particularly in so far as it relates to Scottish inshore fishermen, who will be sold down the European river on 1st January 1983 unless the Government can do something about it? Will he realise that the fishermen in my constituency and other constituencies are voting with their feet and leaving this industry, and that if many more do this whole communities will be at risk?

When last the hon. Lady asked me this question I reminded her that we had obtained a derogation from the common fisheries policy for the rest of this decade and into the 1980s. I am glad that she acknowledged that during her supplementary question. The future of the fishing industry in Scotland is determined jointly by our attitude towards the common fisheries arrangements in the EEC and the Law of the Sea Conference which was recently adjourned at Caracas. I give the hon. Lady the absolute assurance that the interests about which she speaks will be properly preserved by the Government negotiators in both those bodies.

The fishermen do not believe you.

Is the Minister aware that the people should be fully informed of all the facts before the referendum takes place? What steps do the Government intend to take to make sure that the Press and the media give all the facts? What resources will be available to organisations which want to spread this information?

My hon. Friend ought not to assume that automatically it is to be a referendum which will be used to judge the views of the British people. The Prime Minister has said that that is the most probable outcome, but no announcement has been made about the definite character of the referendum. Irrespective of the form in which the views of the British people are judged, I share my hon. Friend's view absolutely that it is important to have some form of Representation of the People Bill which ensures that both sides of the argument are represented.

In making the reaffirmation that the Minister has about 1·4 million tons in respect of Commonwealth Sugar Agreement sugar, will he tell the House whether he thinks that the suppliers in the Commonwealth are as strongly committed as are Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, to the supply of that figure?

I think that the suppliers in the Commonwealth are committed to access into the European market as long as they can be assured of an adequate price in the European market. What would be crazy for the Government to attempt to do would be to sign an agreement with the Commonwealth which required them to sell sugar into the EEC or into Britain at so low a price that it would be deeply to their disadvantage to do so. That is why I negotiated at all the Councils of Ministers in an attempt to obtain access for 1·4 million tons, but access at a reasonable price, which is a fair price to the Commonwealth and a price which encourages the Commonwealth to continue to supply sugar to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the EEC renegotiations to be concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to progress so far achieved towards the renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 30th October, it is our aim to conclude renegotiation by next spring.

In view of what is happening around us, is it not high time that we as a Government, now that the rest of the Europeans—or some of them —are accepting the fact that we have good reasons for renegotiating, told them that the date is fixed as far as we are concerned, that that is the deadline, and that the objects must be achieved by that time?

As to the implications of the final part of my hon. Friend's question, I share his view exactly that if a test is to be made of the British people's opinion it is important that it should be an honest test and that neither side should have undue advantage over the other. My hon. Friend and I do not disagree there.

It must be assumed that the Government are operating in good faith and renegotiating in good faith. Therefore, will the Minister give an undertaking that if the British Government's demands are met the Government will give their endorsement to the electorate?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he at least accepts our good faith. I shall take that in the spirit in which it was offered. This has been made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Relations. We are negotiating in good faith. The implications of that are that if we obtain the terms for which we ask we expect that our view would be that British interests are best served by continued membership of the EEC.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the official policy of the Labour Party to stay in Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, indeed—if we get the conditions which we are now trying to negotiate? In that circumstance, the recent public opinion poll confirms the rectitude of that position.

I cannot take any responsibility for what appears in the Press about the alternatives. I can promise my hon. Friend that when the time comes and the renegotiation at the ministerial level is concluded the case we present to the British people must not only explain the advantages and disadvantages of membership but must also explain the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. That is our clear duty to the British people and to the House.

Does not the Minister of State agree that we have not only ourselves to consider in this matter, and that our whole relationship with what I will describe as the Protocol 22 countries must be affected by the continuing uncertainty of our own attitude? Therefore, the sooner the matter is decided the better, because either a referendum or a General Election would take some time to prepare.

I believe that the sooner this matter is concluded one way or the other the better. However, I hope that the Protocol 22 countries, acting as a united group, will decide where their best interests lie and will make progress towards securing those interests without waiting to discover the outcome of the renegotiations and of the test of the British people's opinion. The Protocol 22 countries should unite as a group and pursue their own interests with the maximum possible speed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the Council of Ministers the need for a co-ordinated policy within EEC member countries to deal with hijacking, terrorism and kidnapping of people detained for the commission of crimes in furtherance of political objectives.

We are prepared to discuss in any international forum how to combat these crimes. We have recently taken an initiative with the aim of achieving a harmonised policy on aviation security in the wider forum of the European Civil Aviation Conference.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he not agree that international law and order is at stake if convicted hijackers and murderers can be sprung from prison, as we have seen so often in recent months? As this seems to happen far more in Western Europe than in Eastern Europe, does he not agree that there is a case, perhaps through the renegotiations, for the British Government taking an initiative with our European partners and possibly considering the construction of a prison for these sorts of prisoners which is a very long, long way away from the BBC and ITV studios?

I am not sure about the hon. Gentleman's final proposal, neither am I sure that the EEC is the best and only forum in which this question should be discussed. Certainly some of our EEC partners have demonstrated the way in which these matters should be dealt with. The action of the Dutch Government in dealing with the situation firmly but calmly sets a pattern for the whole world.

Will the Minister of State confirm that these discussions have taken place with Foreign Ministers in the EEC? They certainly took place under a Conservative Government. Can he assure us that those discussions are still continuing?

Yes, I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance gladly, but discussions on this topic have also taken place in seven or eight other fora, and it is a balance of judgment as to where is the most appropriate place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline what part he intends to play in the preparations for the referendum on Great Britain's continued membership of the EEC.

My right hon. Friend will be participating in the Government's consideration of how we should implement our undertaking to consult the British people.

Will the Minister of State explain why the Government seem so reluctant and coy about giving any practical details as to how this consultation is to be brought about?

This is because the Government are reluctant to make statements which cannot be substantiated with fact and detail afterwards. The Government are determined to take a sensible and balanced view about how best the British people's will should be determined, and when what seems to be in the interests of the British people has been decided the details of that consultation will be announced.

Does my hon. Friend accept that many of us on the Government side believe that when the referendum is held the responsibility for the questions which are to be put before the British people rests with the British Government who have conducted the negotiations, and with no other body?

I leave aside the assumption my hon. Friend makes, that it will be a referendum rather than any other form of consultation. Clearly, when the time comes the Government have obligations in these matters and the Government will not try to escape from those obligations. They have an obligation to negotiate what is best for the British people. They will have to make their view known on what is best for the British people.

Will not the Minister of State develop this a little further and give the House the benefit of his views on the curious dichotomy and irony of a situation in which some members of his party who are not anxious to see us remain in the EEC are always rabbiting on about the sovereignty of this Parliament and yet are prepared to entertain the idea of a referendum, which would be a "phoney" form of consultation?

Even allowing for my own views on the subject—I fear that they have been made transparently clear during the last quarter of an hour—I do not see any automatic dichotomy beween preserving the proper rôle of this Parliament and consulting the British people on a matter of such constitutional importance. The British people are anxious that they should play a direct part in this decision and the Government are determined that they should do just that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will instruct the Hong Kong Government to introduce a wealth tax in the colony.

No, Sir. Introduction of any new tax in Hong Kong would be a matter for the Hong Kong Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, given the make-up of the Hong Kong Government, there is no possibility of their ever adopting a Socialist measure such as the introduction of a wealth tax? Is it not a very serious anomaly for a Socialist Government in Britain to introduce a wealth tax here but to ignore the situation in Hong Kong, whose taxation system is much less progressive than ours and whose taxation system, like the make-up of their Government, is biased heavily in favour of the rich?

Yes, but taxation in Hong Kong is a matter for the Hong Kong Government and not for me.

While expressing gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he will condemn this attempt by some of his colleagues to introduce an element of neo-colonialism into this House by which they are seeking to remove powers of self-government already granted to a dependency of this country?

My hon. Friend was quite right to introduce what he regards as the shortcomings of a Government for which we have final responsibility. I hope that the welfare provisions and other provisions of the Hong Kong Government will be improved.

While it is difficult for this country to give directives on the details of taxation to colonial Governments, is it not a fact that in the past Secretaries of State for the Colonies and previous title holders of my right hon. Friend's office have leaned heavily on colonial Governments in order to persuade them to adopt certain measures? Should not we do so in relation to this sort of thing?

I have been asked about a specific measure in this case, but that does not mean that I am wholly without communication with the Hong Kong Government on other issues.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be welcome in Hong Kong? He has dismissed the ideological fulminations of his hon. Friend. It is quite clear that if a wealth tax is introduced in Hong Kong the initiative of the Chinese will be undermined and there will be a resultant grave lack of confidence and damage to all the population of Hong Kong.

That may or may not be right. I should think that there is a good case for increasing taxation in considerable measure in Hong Kong, but that is a matter for them. The fact that I am not able to issue a directive should not lead the hon. Gentleman to assume that there are not many aspects of the taxation system which could be improved.