asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Portugal.

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

I have no plans to do so at present. I paid an official visit to Portugal on 6th and 7th February and the Portuguese Foreign Minister was in London on 27th June for talks with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and me.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as the present Government continue in power in Portugal his decision not to pay an official visit will be welcomed? Are the NATO official documents still being supplied to Portugal? If so, at what stage will the right hon. Gentleman consider it right to advise his NATO colleagues not to supply Portugal with those documents?

The Portuguese régime—I do not think that there is a Government at present; the Portuguese have not yet been able to form one—has indicated that it retains its loyalty to NATO, and therefore it is being treated as a full member of NATO. We should not give up the battle for democracy there before we need to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the present situation there is also a serious danger from the Right in Portugal, and that it ill becomes Opposition Members, who never uttered one word of protest about Caetano, and who wined and dined him, to protest about the absence of democracy in Portugal now? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that we shall be utterly opposed to threats to democracy from the Right? Will he mention this to people who may have some influence on the activities of the CIA, bearing in mind what it has done in Chile and various other countries?

Although I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the attitude to Caetano, I do not agree with much of the rest of his supplementary question. The principal danger to Portugal at present comes from the attempt by certain elements in the armed forces movement, combined with the Communist Party, to set aside the expressed will of the Portuguese people. Let us direct our attention to the real threat, rather than conjure up other threats which do not at present exist.

As one who was reported by the PIDE for making adverse comments on aspects of the earlier régime, with the result that information was ordered to be withheld from me, may I ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary whether he is aware that there are now many more political prisoners in Portugal—not accused of any offence, much less tried—and will he do his best to interest Amnesty International or some other suitable body in their cases?

Yes, Sir. What the hon. Gentleman says is correct, and it is a cause of considerable disquiet. Representations on the matter have been made by our ambassador, and we shall continue to make them when we think that it will be helpful.

If my right hon. Friend makes an official visit to Portugal, how will he explain to the Portuguese authorities the meaning of recent statements that all aid grants, and so on, to be made to Portugal, or contemplated, would be conditional on the establishment of democracy? How will he explain the apparent inconsistency that we already grant economic aid to nations which do not have democratic Governments or régimes?

The European Council considered this matter, and the decision was taken by all the Heads of Government. We were considering our attitude to aid to Portugal in the European context. I know of no dictatorship in Europe to which financial aid of this sort is given. The statement that was made, which I wholeheartedly endorse, and which I hope my hon. Friend whole-heartedly endorses, was that in accordance with our European policy and history to date we could support only a pluralistic democracy.

Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister acknowledged that funds were going to the Portuguese Communist Party from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He drew a distinction between those funds coming from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the Communist Government of the Soviet Union. Will the Secretary of State define that distinction a little more closely?

No, Sir. I do not think that I can elaborate on a reply to a supplementary question which was asked yesterday.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it a condition of his Department's grant to the external services of the BBC that they cease to employ avowed members of Communist or Communist-front parties.

No, Sir. But I have asked the BBC to take effective measures against repetition of the events which I believe the hon. Member has in mind, whether in the Portuguese service or any of the other external programmes. It has agreed to do so.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for the firm line he has taken on this matter. I welcome the forthright admission by the BBC of incidents of pro-Communist bias in its Portuguese services. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at a time when the democratic parties in Portugal are fighting for their lives against the Communist Party—which is reliably reported to be receiving the equivalent of £4 million sterling per month from the Soviet Union—the British people find it difficult to understand or to accept that the external services of the BBC should employ people who represent the enemies of democracy in what is supposed to be the voice of Britain abroad?

The BBC has acknowledged lapses from the accepted standards of objectivity in its Portuguese services. In the light of the review which was conducted, I have the personal assurance from the Director General of the BBC that the persons concerned have been reprimanded and warned that the penalty for any repetition will be dismissal. In view of the supervision of the programme by the Director General, which is taking place, he is satisfied that there will be no recurrence. Therefore, I do not consider that I should take the matter any further.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the prompt response of the BBC to the representations made—some would say that it was super-prompt—should be the end of the matter? It would be greatly regretted by many of us, who are equally concerned with the establishment of pluralist democracy in Portugal, if we encouraged the BBC to launch a McCarthy-ite purge of all the BBC external services.

I do not think that there is the slightest danger of that. My rôle with the external services is to prescribe the countries, languages and times of transmissions. I do not think that I need to carry that matter any further now.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the enormous importance of the external services of the BBC, partly by reason of their high quality in general and partly because they are regarded universally outside this country as the voice of Britain? In those circumstances, should not the people working in those services accept the same responsibilities and the same conditions as people working in the Foreign Service?

I do not know that I want to give an answer to a question like that off the cuff. At first glance I think that the responsibilities of the people working for the BBC external services are a little less than those of the people employed in the Foreign Service. Certainly high standards of objectivity are required, and are accepted as being required, by the BBC authorities.

As one who, in the House, has gently criticised the BBC external services for alleged bias against British trade, and who subsequently has had discussions with the BBC, may I say that I am persuaded that the BBC coverage of British trade is fairer than some of us thought?

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend say that. Most of us who go abroad are conscious of the influence of the BBC external services. I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's tribute to the work done overseas by the BBC. In my judgment his tribute is well deserved.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consult with the BBC regarding the desirability of extending the duration of broadcasts in the Portuguese Service.

Yes, Sir. I have already been in touch with the BBC External Services on this important matter. They are actively considering how an extension can be introduced in the near future.

That answer is welcome, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it makes it all the more important that the contents of the programmes and those running the programmes should be objective? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some hon. Members will have been rather disappointed that he was not able to go a little further in answering a previous question on this subject? Should another situation arise in some other part of the world where it appears suitable to increase the duration of the broadcasting of the BBC's overseas services, does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it could be done more rapidly than in this case?

The BBC's External Services' Budget is subject to the overall cut for 1976–77 that was announced in the Spring Budget. It would be able to ask the BBC to increase its services to Portugal only by cutting down services elsewhere. This is a problem that the House must face when hon. Members call for reductions in public expenditure. I regret this situation, but it is inevitable, as I shall not be able to get a larger Vote. Mr. Mario Soares told me and all the Socialist leaders on Saturday that the people of Portugal—he was probably generalising—listen exclusively to the BBC and the German radio. It is therefore, of vital importance to Portugal's struggle for democracy that we should extend the services and that they should carry accurate and objective news.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of us are a little uncomfortable about certain pressures that seem to be coming from the Opposition about the BBC? I hope that these pressures will be resisted.

My hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I shall yield to pressure from the Opposition not because it comes from them, but only if it is realistic. I shall judge the matter as objectively as I can. There were isolated lapses in the BBC's Portuguese service. I am satisfied that they have been put right. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) wishes to pursue a vendetta on the matter. I am satisfied that the Director-General wishes to pursue an objective policy and that he is making arrangements to do so. I think that we should leave the matter there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Iceland about the unilateral extension of that country's fishing limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with the Icelandic Minister of Foreign Affairs.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is having with the Icelandic Government over the future extension of fishing limits.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to meet the Icelandic Foreign Minister, but as my right hon. Friend the Minister of State told the House on 21st July, we have been pressing the Icelandic Government for an early opening of negotiations on a renewed agreement on British fishing around Iceland. My right hon. Friend saw the Icelandic Prime Minister, Mr. Hallgrims-son, in Helsinki on 30th July, and took the opportunity to repeat to him that in our view it was very important that these negotiations should be started in good time.

Does not the emphasis placed on negotiations indicate that, however much we may disapprove of unilateral declarations of this kind, the British Government recognise that 200 miles is an appropriate area of sea to be regulated for fishing and other purposes by a coastal State? Is it not time that Britain made it clear that if the international agreement does not enable us to safeguard oar own waters—by a similar 200 mile radius or by a median line, where appropriate—we would not want to sit back and see other countries making such declarations while our own fish resources were threatened?

There is no question of the Government's sitting back whilst our fishery resources and prospects are threatened. Equally, there is no question of the Government's making a unilateral declaration about a 200-mile limit, which in our view would be illegal and inappropriate to Britain's international posture over the years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we recognise—as I believe that the Icelandic Government recognise—that we have a special interest in this matter and a special necessity to fish close to Icelandic coastal waters. I promise that we shall continue to press those interests very hard.

Is the Minister aware that the Icelandic Minister for Foreign Affairs said that the fish stocks in the Iceland area could not longer sustain the effects resulting from fishing by foreign nationals? Does he accept that the herring resources off the west coast of Britain can no longer sustain fishing by foreign nationals? In his discussions with Iceland, will he attempt to secure an end of Iceland's right to fish for herring off the west coast?

The essential aspect of these negotiations is securing British rights to fish in, about and close to the Icelandic waters. The hon. Gentleman referred to what a Minister in the Icelandic Government said. That is an example of the substantial passions which have been raised in Iceland about this issue. Our job is to demonstrate over the next two months that substantial passions are also raised in Great Britain over the issue, and that we are determined that a solution fair to British fishermen should be obtained.

It is clear that traditional British fishing rights will be maintained until altered by international agreement. Is not the best answer for all nations who are allowed to do so by international law to extend the limit to 200 miles?

I am not sure that that is the answer to our immediate problems, which we seek to solve by direct negotiations with the Icelandic Government by 13th November. I assure the hon. Gentle-man that in the time at our disposal we shall continue to negotiate as toughly and as determinedly as we can, reminding the Government of Iceland that they have a vested interest in obtaining a satisfactory agreement, as have the British Government.

Is it not better to seek to separate, as far as we can, the general right of coastal States to make claims to 200-mile fishing zones—that is a right which seems likely to be claimed by a number of other countries in future—and our own specific rights in these waters? Is it not a fact that our rights should be covered by the original 1962 fishing agreement with Iceland and the subsequent arrangements made with that country? That should mean that regardless of a general zone of 200 miles we should make special arrangements for British fishing fleets.

I am sure that that is right. The Minister of State made clear on behalf of the Government at the Law of the Sea Conference that the 200-mile zone seems to us to be the basis on which agreement, both internationally and multi-laterally, will eventually be obtained. The discussions to which I refer today deal specifically with the bilateral fishing arrangements between two States. In those discussions we must persist with our determination in fishing much closer to Icelandic shores than 200 miles or, indeed, 50 miles.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for financial help the Government have received from the Government of Mozambique.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development explained on 9th July, preliminary discussions about aid were held with Frelimo before independence. Further discussions can take place as soon as the Mozambique Government are ready.

Is the Minister aware of the reply which was given to me by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on 11th June when he stated that specific proposals had been made to the Government of Mozambique but that he was not in a position to say what the proposals were for helping that Government to join the sanctions campaign against Rhodesia? Will the Minister say what those proposals were? Will he give the House an assurance that the United Kingdom will not commit itself to paying large sums of money to Mozambique unless there is an international agreement whereby any burden is shared by the United Nations member countries and others?

No. I cannot go beyond what my right hon. Friend said. He was right in pointing out that before independence certain specific proposals had been discussed with the leaders of Frelimo. They know the ideas we have in mind. We are ready to hold discussions with them as soon as they wish, now that an independent Government has been formed in Mozambique. In the meantime those discussions, and such proposals as have been made, are obviously confidential.

Will my right hon. Friend consider giving financial aid to Mozambique, as the Fascist régime in Portugal has ended and Mozambique is moving towards independence and is likely to maintain United Nations sanctions against Rhodesia? Does my right hon. Friend agree that as we shall no longer have to operate the Beira control the money we shall save in that respect should be given to Mozambique to ensure that the illegal régime in Rhodesia is brought to an end at the earliest possible date?

There is no doubt that Mozambique will require a great deal of assistance in developing her economy. We recognise that the application of sanctions will impose a severe burden on Mozambique's economy. That is why we are prepared to contribute generously, in the hope that other United Nations member States will do likewise, preferably within the United Nations framework.

Why cannot the Minister give the assurance for which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) asked—that any aid from the United Kingdom that is related to United Nations sanctions will be within the United Nations context?

I said that it is our hope that it will be within a United Nations framework, but, as I have said before in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, in deciding the level of United Kingdom aid to a country, we have to determine the level of need of that country. Part of the level of need will be the extent to which Mozambique applies sanctions against Rhodesia, as it is part of her international obligation to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent developments in the CSCE and the mutual and balanced force reduction talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the mutual force reduction talks.

As regards the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday.

Did not the leaders of both sides at Helsinki state that the top priority now was mutual force reductions? What will the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government do to seize quickly this opportunity for mankind to beat its swords into ploughshares and relieve the world of its colossal burden of arms spending?

My right hon. Friend is right. That was the burden of a great many speeches at Helsinki. In my view, as I said in my visits to Poland and Hungary and, earlier, to Moscow, this is the task for 1976. We should all be concentrating on carrying the Vienna talks further—if possible to a conclusion. My hon. Friend asks us to do it quickly. That would be unrealistic. The difficulties in the positions of both sides will demand a long period of careful negotiation before either gives up any positions that it holds.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the House will endorse the remarks made by the Prime Minister yesterday, to the effect that the test of the security conference will be not the undertakings that were given at Helsinki but whether they are carried out? Is it not salutary to recall that the constitution of the Soviet Union guarantees the citizens of the Soviet Union freedom of speech, freedom of the Press and freedom of assembly, and guarantees the constituent republics of the Soviet Union freedom to secede?

Yes, Sir, but I think that he would be singularly naive who expected all that to be introduced tomorrow.

Or even on Sunday.

I agree with that, bearing in mind the long history of Russia both under the Soviet régime and previously. Therefore, one has to have regard to the historical position. On the other hand, having attended this conference and having been present at all the previous talks, I think that it would be unduly cynical to dismiss the Helsinki agreements as being of no value. They have all been reproduced in all the news-papers—official and otherwise—of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. People have been told to what their Governments have given assent and to what they have pledged their names. We should not underrate the impact of opinion in these countries and elsewhere. But Mr. Brezhnev and others will continue to argue, as they did at Helsinki—I repeat his words:

"No one should try to dictate to other peoples, on the basis of foreign policy considerations, the manner in which they ought to manage their internal affairs. It is only the people of each given State and no one else who have a sovereign right to resolve its internal affairs and establish its own laws."

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Helsinki agreements will ring hollow if they do not eventually lead to an arms reduction in Europe? What is the current status of tactical nuclear weapons in the Vienna discussions? As the West has marked superiority in these weapons, could not we afford to be a little less coy in including them in negotiations? If we continue to exclude them from the Vienna talks and from the SALT talks, when shall we get round to talking about the control of one of the most destructive weapons in central Europe?

I agree that these talks are important, and I do not think that it is impossible to construct a package that would be advantageous to both sides, although it would be difficult to do so. Despite the desire of the Soviet Union and others that we should include nuclear weapons, the Western side has so far confined itself to the question of ground troops—in which, according to our data, we are heavily outnumbered—and tanks—in which the Soviet Union outnumbers us by about two and half to one. We should not take up a final or fixed position on what should be included in the package if one can be constructed that satisfies both sides.

I welcome what was decided at Helsinki, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether, in his opinion, the quotation he read of what Mr. Brezhnev said, in effect, outlaws the Brezhnev doctrine? As to the follow-up, while we all welcome the stocktaking in Belgrade in two years' time, what interim arrangements will there be for meetings, possibly between Foreign Ministers, specifically to discuss the Helsinki agreements? I am speaking not just of general talks but, for example, of discussions before the two years are up on how to monitor Soviet interference in Portugal by giving £1 million a week aid to the Portuguese Communist Party.

I must leave Mr. Brezhnev to interpret his declaration. [Interruption.] I intend to leave him to interpret it. There is nothing in the Helsinki documents to give any countenance to the Brezhnev doctrine. Nothing has been signed there that will give any support to that so-called doctrine.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will institute discussions with a view to the acquisition by the United Nations by purchase, by long lease or otherwise, of the Sinai Peninsula as a buffer zone and first world district.

No, Sir. There is no prospect that the Egyptian Government would agree to such a proposal.

The right hon. Gentleman's answer is rather disappointing. Is he aware that about 70 hon. Members in 1965, 1967 and 1973 gave support to this proposal? Will he reconsider his answer?

The matter was considered at that time. Certainly I considered the matter when the hon. Gentle-man and some of his colleagues put forward this idea only a few months ago—in fact, some time last year. Although it could conceivably be of interest as part of an overall long-term settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute, I think that at the moment it is premature. I am not saying that it is not an idea that we shall be examining at a later date.

Would it not be more advisable, and would it not save a good deal of trouble in future, if the whole of the area that used to be Palestine and is now called Israel were to become the United Nation's first world district, instead of it existing, as now, as one of the world's leading racialist States?

I hardly think that that proposal is likely to find international agreement, either.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the part being played by Her Majesty's Government in working for a settlement of the Cyprus question.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had useful bilateral discussions with Mr. Karamanlis, Mr. Demirel and Mr. Christophides in Helsinki last week. The good offices of the Nine have been made available through the Italian Presidency to help the parties in their search for a lasting settlement in order to supplement the efforts of Dr. Waldheim, the Secretary General, at the United Nations.

Will the right hon. Gentle-man say a little more about what he hopes Signor Moro, acting on behalf of the Community, will be able to achieve in this matter? Are we right in deducing from what he has been saying on these matters that he sees more hope in this kind of diplomacy, and in the talks in Vienna, than in the House's condemnations of Turkey, or in an arms embargo against Turkey?

The discussions between Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides, according to the reports I have been receiving, have been more hopeful than for some time past. Although I have said constantly in the House that there are hopes of the talks succeeding and that I trust they will succeed, I think I can say that with a little more confidence today.

Does my right hon. Friend recollect that some time ago in the House he suggested that many British workers' livelihoods would be at stake if we were to prevent the shipment of British arms to Turkey? Even though that embargo can be placed on Turkey pending compliance by Turkey with the United Nations resolution, is not my right hon. Friend getting his priorities wrong in terms of the answer which he has just given? Despite the effect that it might have on our economy, would we not be doing a good deal towards world morality if we were able to tell Turkey that we would not supply arms so long as those arms could be used for the purpose of defeating the United Nations resolution?

My hon. Friend is get-ting the time scales wrong. At present, no arms of any consequence are being supplied to Turkey, and I have never said there are. What we are discussing is whether there should be talks between British firms and the Turks to see whether, in future, there will be orders coming to this country that might result in work that will take place in two years' time in the fulfilment of orders in three years' time. That is what we are talking about. We are not talking about any immediate consequence. For us to say now that we shall place an arms embargo on Turkey would be an almost completely meaningless gesture.

The whole House will welcome the fact that the talks between Mr. Denktash and Mr. Clerides have made progress and look as if they could make even more progress, but will the right hon. Gentleman hazard a guess whether Archbishop Makarios's rôle in the negotiations has been a help or a hindrance?

No. I think it would be mischievous for me to express an opinion on that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the new Consumer Council in Hong Kong.

The council has considered almost 7,000 individual complaints and taken successful action in nearly 600. In about 1,200 cases the retailers' explanations were considered satisfactory; and action in the rest proved impossible.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the House should congratulate Hong Kong on the way it has got this going so quickly? Are there not some examples that we might emulate in this country?

I am not going to comment on whether an experiment in Hong Kong would be applicable in this country. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right in suggesting that the experiment in Hong Kong has been most encouraging. I congratulate those responsible in Hong Kong on the initiative that they took.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans any discussions with the United States Government on the Middle East.

Such discussions are continuing, and the most recent were in Helsinki last Thursday, 31st July.

In view of the key rôle which the United Nations plays in the Middle East, has the right hon. Gentle-man impressed upon Dr. Kissinger the need to urge both the Israelis and the Arabs to make substantial concessions in the next few weeks if a further war is to be averted? Does the right hon. Gentle man agree that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to oppose anyone who urges that Israel should be expelled from the United Nations? Equally, does he agree that we should expect Israel to desist from her provocative policy of building settlements in occupied territory?

As regards forth-coming events, both President Ford and Dr. Kissinger are deeply concerned that there should be a speedy conclusion of the current round of talks, leading to an interim agreement in August. There is hardly any need for me to press that upon them. They are perhaps even more aware than I am of the consequences of the situation.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am staggered to hear him say that he has no knowledge of the colonisation of Egyptian and Syrian territory by Israel? This has been going on for many years and has not been concealed by the Israelis. It is a major stumbling block to any prospects of a peaceful settlement. Will he interest himself further in this matter and draw the attention of the United States and Israeli Governments to this important issue?

I note what my hon. Friend says, but I feel that there is probably another side to the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EEC Ministers regarding the Middle East situation.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave to a similar Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) on 30th July.—[Vol. 896, c. 493.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the steps that should be taken by Israel is for her to withdraw to the east of the Sinai passes? Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the remarks attributed to King Hussein yesterday, to the effect that another Middle Eastern war was inevitable unless urgent steps were taken? Does he see any chance of the EEC countries working out together what those urgent steps should be?

The degree of withdrawal by Israel is one of the delicate matters now being negotiated between the parties, with the intermediation of the United States. I do not think that it would be helpful for me to express an opinion on what should be the position of the United States at the end of the negotiations. As for the prospect of another war, I believe that the prospect of failure to reach an interim agreement in August could have a shattering impact on the Middle East.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is at present a strong Israeli-inspired campaign to sabotage the Euro-Arab dialogue, and that a recent resolution at the European Parliament, which we managed to water down considerably, was part of that campaign?

The Community recently reached an agreement with Israel, and the Euro-Arab dialogue in some ways is a counterpart to that. The talks had a successful beginning on 22nd and 24th July, but it is not our intention—I hope that it is nobody else's—that the dialogue should be used to debate issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The purpose of the dialogue is economic, although its very existence is an important political fact.

Even if a settlement is achieved, as we hope it will be in the coming weeks or months, the whole of the efforts of the British Government and of other interested parties could be brought to naught by the sheer weight and volume of military hardware which has been flowing and continues to flow into this potential area of conflict. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ratio of arms into the area has exceeded two-to-one from the Soviet Union to the Arab neighbours of the Israelis, compared with anything coming from the United States in recent months?

There is a very great flow of arms into the Middle East. That is one of the most disquieting features of the situation; indeed, I have discussed that matter with my colleagues and with others. If I thought that there was a chance of obtaining agreement on the subject I should jump at it, irrespective of the consequences to work here, or anything else. However, it would involve the Soviet Union as well as the United States. I think that the parties in the Middle East themselves are not yet clear whether they would support it. Therefore, I fear that there is no prospect of such a move at present, but it is a matter at which we must constantly work if we see the faintest chance of success.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that hopes of peace in the Middle East are sadly jeopardised by the behaviour of the Arab States in the Third World grouping at the United Nations, particularly in the organisations which until the present time have not been the subject of political dispute? Will he take steps to ensure that, so far as the matter lies within the power of the British Government, the politicising of the United Nations agencies, which until now have carried out wonderful universalist work, will not be allowed to continue?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I would not have been able to express the matter as well as she has done. Where we control the voting in these institutions it is my standing practice to prevent the politicising of those bodies, but, alas, we are not always free to do so because often nongovernmental representatives attend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he expects to attend the EEC Council of Ministers.

On 15th and 16th September.

What immediate steps will my right hon. Friend take to persuade other Common Market members to extend the terms of the Lomé Convention to include other non-associate countries, particularly members of the Commonwealth?

This is an important matter, which is the subject of discussions. The first step which we shall be able to take will be at the Special Assembly of the United Nations, which is to be held on 2nd September. The Community has reached an agreed position on those and other matters. I do not think there will be a settlement there, but we shall certainly follow up the matter over a period of months. We shall not be the principal paymasters. The largest sum in aid of this scheme will probably come from the Federal Republic of Germany. Therefore, the Germans will naturally have an important say in these issues.

At the next meeting in September, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say that he feels that it will be some time before Greece becomes a full member of the EEC, and does he agree that there is a substantial difference between the Government's position in welcoming Greece's application and implementing it, since this involves difficult negotiations about a country with a basically weak economy?

It is too early for me to reach conclusions on that matter. The Commission was asked by us at its last meeting to prepare a report on the issues involved. I understand that the Commission will be some months in preparing that document. When that work has been completed, we shall be able to consider the basic problem of how soon Greece will be able to join.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with the other members of the Council of Ministers the question of having Scottish representation in Brussels? On commonsense grounds, does he not agree that the Scottish Office should now open a liaison office in Brussels, so that we may take direct advantage of the various European funds available there?

I understand that my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council made clear in the debate on the summer Adjournment motion that the White Paper on devolution will deal fully with the question of representation in the EEC, following the establishment of the Scottish Assembly and similar matters. I wish to put on record that the rôle of United Kingdom Ministers is to represent the United Kingdom. There- fore, I regard it as my rôle to represent Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that he might represent the United Kingdom more effectively if he were properly advised by the Scottish Office about the Scottish case?

It is not for me to disclose the secrets of the Cabinet, which are kept tightly—[Interruption.]—but I should not like the hon. Gentleman to be under any misapprehension that the Secretary of State for Scotland never speaks to me about this question, or that there is not a telephone, or that he is unable to write to me about the matter, or, indeed, that we do not have committees considering these problems. It is an absurd idea that I go to Brussels without having full knowledge of what the Secretary of State for Wales or the Secretary of State for Scotland has to say. Even if we do not cover them in correspondence, we certainly have discussions on these matters.

Changing the subject to a more fruitful topic, will the Foreign Secretary discuss with his colleague the disadvantages that accrue to democracy of having a peripatetic European Parliament? Does he know that it costs £1 million a year to shift all the paper from Strasbourg to Luxembourg to Brussels and back to Luxembourg, apart from the valuable time of busy officials? Will he raise this matter in relation to the need for a permanent seat for the European Parliament near the centre of power?

There have been some preliminary skirmishes or talks in what are called the couloirs, but I do not think there is any agreement, yet as to the prospect of a permanent home for the European Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with EEC Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I attended the Community Heads of Government meeting on 16th and 17th July and visited Hamburg for a meeting with the German Chancellor on 24th July. We also had discussions with a number of Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers of EEC countries at the Conference on European Security and Co-operation in Helsinki last week.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that those of us—perhaps a small and dwindling band—who feel that the Common Market, or certainly the Treaty of Rome, contains the seeds of its own destruction, believe also that a gallop towards political union would be doubly disastrous for this country? As one who expressed concern before the referendum, during it, and perhaps even after it, will my right hon. Friend say once again that he, too, is concerned about any drift or gallop towards federalism, and that he will put it in the appropriate locker, draped appropriately, perhaps, with the Union Jack, at any time that he finds it necessary when he meets his colleagues in Europe?

There has not been a recent discussion on this issue. On the whole, the old nag tends to hobble along rather than gallop. That is my experience, in whatever field it moves. We shall now have to wait and see the report that Mr. Tindemans will prepare and bring in at the end of the year or thereabouts. Then I think there will be a series of discussions. It is bound to be a long drawn out matter, in which the House of Commons and many other bodies will want to express their opinion. Even after that I think that the gap between discussion and action would be very substantial.

Does the Secretary of State agree that those who, like the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), have often argued that the European Commission is essentially an undemocratic organisation, should realise that the best way to deal with this is to make the European Parliament more effective by means of direct elections, and so on?

The powers of the European Assembly are frequently considered by the Council of Ministers, but I do not think that at present there is any need to extend them.

As the Foreign Secretary has mentioned the Tindemans Report, will he confirm that this is to the Heads of Government and not to the formal Council? Will he also help the House in distinguishing the political functions as between the Heads of Government meeting and the Council? Surely only the latter comes within the ambit of the Treaty of Rome, and the Heads of Government meetings are extra to the Treaty and therefore not within the constitution of the EEC.

This is tempting ground. The Heads of Government, when they meet now, call themselves the European Council. The Foreign Ministers, when they meet, call themselves the Council of Foreign Ministers, and the organ referred to in the treaty is the Council of Ministers, but I do not think that the semantic differences between the two are likely to affect the attitude of the Council of Foreign Ministers if their Heads of Government take a certain view, because some Foreign Ministers might find that they would not be occupying their posts very long if they did.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's flexible approach to these matters, will he assure the House that the Tindemans Report, and any other such reports which come before the Council of Ministers, will be made available to be seen by this House and debated in one form or another?

It is absolutely imperative that that should be so. The Council of Foreign Ministers will need to discuss this, but of course it will need to have the fullest debate in all areas of public opinion, including Wales and Scotland, and in the trade unions and other organisations, like the CBI. I think that many people should have a voice in how we see the future of Europe developing before final decisions are taken.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although some Labour Members do not necessarily want to gallop towards union, we would not mind a delicate canter? With that in mind, when the consultations on the Tindemans Report have been completed, will he be prepared to consider the production of a Green Paper, so that we can have public discussion on this matter—discussion which has been lacking in any sort of detail since the referendum campaign?

It is a little early to say that, but if my hon. Friend will put a Question down later, I shall give consideration to it.

In view of the enthusiastic approach that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have rightly expressed towards a common European foreign policy and other policies, will he say to what extent all members of the Community were consulted before it was decided to have an economic summit on unemployment and other matters this autumn, and what arrangements are to be made to ensure that the Community as a whole is represented there?

The Heads of Government who attended a lunch given by the Prime Minister had a fruitful discussion on a wide range of issues, including the general economic situation, which we were unable to complete owing to the timetable for the CSCE meetings. They will remain in contact in order to follow up some points touched on in discussion. No decision has been taken on whether this will lead to further talk at Heads of Government level.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent conversations have been held between Foreign Ministers of the EEC with a view to concerting a common policy on the problem of Namibia.

Namibia is regularly discussed at various levels of the political co-operation machinery. Foreign Ministers are kept fully informed of these discussions; they have not so far discussed Namibia collectively.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent diplomatic pressure brought to bear on South Africa jointly by the United States, France and the United Kingdom was a valuable move, and does he agree that if this could take the form of pressure from the United States and all nine members of the EEC it would be even more valuable? Does he also agree that it would be disastrous if the Western Powers again, at the next General Assembly, found themselves in an isolated group in the world community on the issue of Namibia?

I am glad that my hon. Friend thinks that some progress has been made as a result of the decision by the Governments of France, the United States and the United Kingdom. I agree with him and hope that may continue to be so. Certainly we shall continue to examine whether that sort of pressure can be extended to cover all members of the EEC, and if it seems appropriate we shall raise it under the political machinery at the meeting in September, in the hope that we can, in a co-ordinated way, pursue the kind of policy that my hon. Friend and I want to see achieved.

Does not the Minister of State agree that there are a number of difficult questions relating to South Africa, of which Namibia is one, the recognition or otherwise of the Bantustans another, and arms sales a third? Does he further agree that it would be highly desirable for the members of the European Economic Community to work out a common position on these issues?

I agree with that, in particular in regard to the subject the hon. Gentleman raised. Many of us think that one of the important objectives of the EEC in the rest of this decade is to work out common foreign policy initiatives over a whole range of subjects. This is an example of the success that could come from that policy, and I hope it can become wider and more extensive as the decade continues.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest talks with EEC Foreign Ministers concerning progress towards European political union.

There has been no recent discussion of this subject in the Council of Ministers. I do not expect it to be raised until Mr. Tindemans has produced his report.

Will my hon. Friend reaffirm that it is the Government's official view that they agree in principle that political union is desirable, however long term that aim might be? In the meantime, does he accept the need for direct elections to the European Parliament, which would have to be preceded by increased political powers for the Assembly, and will he say what specific action the Government are taking to see that that happens?

Concerning political union, the Government have always been more anxious to obtain a working definition of what that means than to make a judgment about that concept before the working definition is agreed.

On the question of the powers of the Heads of State meeting, mentioned in an earlier Question, is not the distinction that the Heads of State have no power at all to legislate, whereas the Council of Ministers has such power?

I do not think one should become confused by legal niceties. One should have regard to the realities of the situation. If my hon. Friend examines the history of the Regional Development Fund he will find that the Heads of Government decided that there should be a fund and that the fund should be of a specific size. If he also follows the arguments whether they were legally entitled to do that, he will, I think, conclude that, irrespective of their legal entitlement, what they decided came to pass. I think this is likely to be the reality of the position in Europe for a very long time.