asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with the Portuguese Government about aid to Portugal; and if he will make a statement.

I met Major Antunes on 7th October with other members of the European Council of Ministers and discussed with him the Community's offer of aid. An EEC mission subsequently visited Portugal to discuss the mechanics of implementing this aid offer and satisfactory progress was made. The Government also have a bilateral technical assistance programme to Portugal. In addition, we have made available an RAF VC-10 to take part in the Portuguese airlift from Angola and will be making a contribution to aid for Angolan refugees after they have arrived in Portugal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he will have the entire support of the whole country in his efforts to promote and encourage democracy in Portugal? Will he tell us his latest information about Russian aid to the Portuguese Communist Party? Does he feel that it is in the spirit of the Helsinki agreement?

I am grateful for what the hon. Member has said. It is our view that the people of Portugal have the right to choose for themselves what Government and régime they should have, and we do not welcome any interference from outside. I am not able to give any information about such Russian aid.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as our own resources are very limited, he should welcome aid being given to Portugal by any country?

It depends how that aid is given. If it is in the form of an attempt to achieve a particular political end by covert means, I do not think that it would be welcome.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the prospect for elections, which have been promised in Spain for next February? I am sorry, I mean the elections in Portugal—perhaps there is something to be said on both counts. Is not it a fact that the chance of those free elections being held in Portugal is very remote? Would it not be right for our continued aid to Portugal to rest in large measure on whether the elections are held on or about the promised date?

I and my colleagues in the Community would not like to make the giving of aid conditional on the holding of elections at a fixed time. It has been generally understood that elections will be held and the Portuguese Government, who, in my view, represent most of the people in Portugal, are making valiant efforts to establish control over the country, although there are people attempting to upset their hold. It should be our stance to give every-assistance to the Portuguese Government to establish their position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to pay an official visit to Moscow.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to visit the Soviet Union.

When my right hon. Friend or the Foreign Secretary has the opportunity of consulting the Soviet authorities, here or in the Soviet Union, will he draw to their attention the case of Academician Benjamin Levich, who has been awarded a fellowship at University College, Oxford, and who was promised that he could leave Russia with his wife this month or next, but who has now been told by the KGB that they may never go? Will my right hon. Friends explain to the Soviet authorities that when they treat people like this, their signature on the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement is not worth the paper it is written on?

We have continually drawn the attention of the Soviet authorities to this sort of case, both before the Final Act of the Helsinki agreement and since. We shall continue to do so.

If the Foreign Secretary visits Moscow, will the right hon. Gentleman encourage him to consider the possibility of bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union on the lines of the successful negotiations conducted by the Prime Minister in Bucharest last month? Might it be possible to get some agreement on monthly monitoring, as the Prime Minister did in relation to trade? Could the right hon. Gentleman also say when British journalists will get the same visa facilities as Americans, following the Helsinki CSCE agreement?

I understand that the visa situation for British journalists has considerably improved and that multi-entry visas are at least in prospect if not already granted. I am glad the hon. Member applauded some of the achievements of the recent past. We still want to examine whether they can be repeated with other countries in Eastern Europe, but each country needs a prescription and a remedy of its own.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what criteria he takes into account in considering whether Her Majesty's Government should make public diplomatic protests over the sentences of punishment awarded to foreign nationals convicted and sentenced in the courts of their homelands.

The points I take into account include, in particular, whether there is anything in the circumstances of the trial or the sentence which causes serious concern on humanitarian or human rights grounds, the likelihood of our being able to exert a beneficial or moderating influence, the need to avoid interference in the internal affairs of other countries and whether this country or our relations are likely to be directly or indirectly affected by any consequences of such events.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, on those criteria, it is difficult to understand why he has not made protests to many of the authoritarian Left-wing régimes about incidents far beyond the scale of those in which the murderers of policemen were executed? What is his view of such incidents as the murder of people who as refugees are merely trying to leave those vicious Left-wing regimes for which he seems to have more tender susceptibilities than for a country such as Spain?

I do not think that the hon. Member can follow these matters very closely, because otherwise he would be aware of two facts. The first is that there were ample reasons for concern on humanitarian and human rights grounds about the recent Spanish trials and executions, a concern shared by all members of the Community. Secondly, as I have said in listing the criteria, I have to consider in what circumstances representation will have a beneficial influence. Sometimes representations are made in public while at other times they are made in private. The hon. Member should not assume that if he does not hear that they have been made, they have not been made.

Is not the Foreign Secretary prepared to condemn what he believes to be injustice wherever it may take place?

I have made that clear on nearly every occasion when Conservative Members have sought to extract from me pledges that I most willingly give. If I were to read to the House the list of cases in which we have thought it right to make representations—I do not think that would help much—the allegation by the hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) would be seen to be totally unfounded.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that in this difficult problem countries wishing to be seen as allies or friends of Britain need not be surprised if the British Government make clear that they regard a fair trial as an essential condition in any democracy with which they are concerned?

I utterly agree. I do not believe that trials by military courts, summary trials for capital offences, difficulties placed in the way of the defence, the death penalty being given after a summary trial or reports of torture being used to extract confessions are likely to commend themselves to anybody in this country, although there might be one or two exceptions.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the guidelines he has indicated would permit the Government to make representations to the Government of France in a case such as that of Yann Foueré, who was to have addressed a meeting in Wales last weekend but who was imprisoned in France on a trumped-up charge?

I read about that case in the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo last weekend. I shall consider what the hon. Member has said. It is not always best to handle these matters by way of public representations. We have achieved some very good results on occasions by making representations in private.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent contacts he has had with the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

In recent months there has been no direct contact with the illegal régime in Rhodesia. A statement on the Government's policy towards Rhodesia will be made during the forthcoming debate in the House on renewal of the sanctions order.

On the eve of that debate, has my right hon. Friend seen the report from the Christian Care organisation this week that there are more political detainees in Rhodesia now than before the Lusaka talks began? Will he urge upon the Smith régime, which appears to be without a friend, even south of the Zambesi, that it should reopen talks with both African nationalist movements and release the detainees? Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent disappearance of Dr. Edson Sithole?

The reports about the numbers of detainees are most disturbing. It is said that the number now is larger than a year ago. We have expressed our concern that so many aspects of the Lusaka agreement have not been fulfilled, and we have urged that they should be. We have made our views known to the régime both in respect of the detainees and publicly about the executions. I can make no statement about the disappearance of Dr. Edson Sithole, but we are naturally very anxious about the situation that has been created.

Why did the Foreign Office recently refuse to have anything to do with a constituent of mine who was severely injured in a car crash in Bulawayo? Is it not an utter disgrace that the only Government that would show an interest and put an end to the worrying of his parents, who are also my constituents, were the South African Government who sent a representative to the hospital in Bulawayo to inquire into the poor boy's condition?

It is disturbing that a situation exists in Rhodesia in which there is an illegal Government which does not have diplomatic representation from the British or other Governments. Mr. Smith knows perfectly well that in order for there to be diplomatic representation, so that we could then fulfil the normal functions of such representation, there must first be a constitutional situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to visit Latin American countries.

My right hon. Friend hopes to visit Latin America in the course of 1976.

I warmly welcome that decision. In view of the great fund of good will towards Great Britain in the Latin American countries, and the great potential of stronger trade relationships between our respective countries, will the Minister say something about the trade agreement, signed recently in London, between Brazil and Great Britain? Is it the Government's intention to extend this kind of agreement to other countries in Latin America?

The agreement was a memorandum of understanding, which allowed an across-the-board dialogue on political, economic and industrial matters between ourselves and Brazil. We have close relationships with many Latin American countries. The form these relationships take will depend on the wishes of individual countries in Latin America.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of our right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the initiative that he and the Government are taking towards Latin America? Are the Government proposing any special measures to encourage British industry to take advantage of the rebuilding of bridges which is taking place?

Yes. Our discussions with, in particular, the Venezuelan Foreign Minister and, last week, the Brazilian Foreign Minister dealt with these issues, and the way in which we are to develop technical, economic and industrial co-operation between our countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make an official visit to Syria.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so, but I shall be paying an official visit to the Middle East, including Syria, in early November.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Syria and many other countries in that area are particularly disturbed about the proposed American sale to Israel of the Pershing missile? Is he aware that this missile is designed only for use with nuclear warheads, and that this escalation of the Middle East arms race could have profound and catastrophic consequences for the whole world? Will the Government do their best to get this piece of American diplomacy changed?

The two sides of the House would be deeply concerned if nuclear weapons fell into the hands of any countries in the Middle East. Her Majesty's Government would certainly condemn any such acquisition. As for the Pershing missile, we should await the outcome of the Israeli request before commenting.

What diplomatic steps are now contemplated, in concert with Western European countries, the United States, or both, to secure the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Golan area as a follow-up to the Sinai agreement?

My hon. Friend will know that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke at the United Nations General Assembly he not only welcomed the Egypt-Israel agreement as a step towards an overall settlement but emphasised the importance of an early development in Golan to reduce tensions in the area, to be followed by negotiations on the central problem of the Palestinians and the West Bank. This is an issue with which Dr. Kissinger is deeply concerned. I am certain both sides of the House wish to see progress on it.

As the Syrian Government have for some time shown a desire to improve relations with Western Europe, including this country, and as there are very great possibilities for trade with Syria, apart from the political implications, has the right hon. Gentleman any concrete proposals to put forward when he goes to that country?

It would not be proper to indicate at this moment the agenda for discussions that I shall be having with Ministers in Syria, although I agree that there are important opportunities for improving and expanding our political and economic relationships, and these will be very high on the agenda for our talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on what progress has been made by the International Atomic Energy Agency Advisory Group on the peaceful use of atomic energy.

The Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions—PNEs—held a successful first meeting on 30th September and 1st October in Vienna. Delegates from 39 countries, including the United Kingdom, attended the meeting and agreed on a comprehensive programme of work. They will meet again next March.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. What representations, if any, has he made to the German Government about the export of the uranium enrichment process to Brazil, which is causing some concern, because there is always the possibility that in the long term it might slip over into military uses of atomic energy?

I do not want to hypothesise on the possibilities of the one agreement to which my hon. Friend referred, but the entire basis of our policy is the fear that the distinction between "peaceful" and "non-peaceful" is not one that can legitimately be made and the desire to make sure that the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers do not arise. It is best that I should not deal this afternoon with the specific proposal, but I assure my hon. Friend that the recent meeting and the one to follow are intended to avoid problems of exactly that sort.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the speech last week by Mr. Eklund, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, appealing to the nuclear weapons States to cease carrying out nuclear tests so as to discourage nuclear proliferation? Will my right hon. Friend make sure that that appeal is considered carefully before a final decision is taken on a future British nuclear test?

That appeal will be considered carefully. My hon. Friend will recall statements already made in the House on this subject. I have nothing to add to them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken by the Government to indicate to the Government of Spain their condemnation of the recent executions of Basque Nationalists and members of other minority groups and of the policies generally followed by the Spanish Government.

Representations have been made at a high level on a number of occasions, including my discussion with the Spanish Foreign Minister in New York in advance of the executions, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's message to the Spanish Prime Minister. Britain also took part as members of the European Community in joint démarches and statements.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government would not in any circumstances contemplate the admission of Spain into the EEC, or any relationship with the EEC, while a repressive régime of the kind in power there now continues the sort of policies that led to the executions?

I have made that clear, and I repeat it now. It may be that we are on the verge of a new movement in Spain. We must wait and see, and hope, for the sake of the Spanish people and of Europe, that that is so. There are many tendencies at work in Spain today. I can only hope that a situation will be created in which it will be possible for Europe and Spain to come closer together.

In answer to an earlier Question the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary indicated that in deciding whether to make an official protest he had to consider whether it would be beneficial, thereby, I assume, indicating that it was no bloody use making representations to the Soviet bloc. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the representations that he made to Spain have immensely strengthened the remaining pro-Fascist elements in Spain and have done great harm to the moderate elements?

The right hon. Gentleman should not make any assumption. whether bloody or otherwise, of the kind he made in the first part of his question. As for the representations to Spain, in which we took separate action and combined action with many other countries I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that, whether as a result of the protests and appeals or not, six of the 11 sentenced were reprieved. It would be hard for the right hon. Gentleman to deduce that the appeals we made and the representations made by many other countries had no effect.

Why not let Spain come into the EEC? She would be much worse off there than outside it.

If the Spanish people, on the basis of a referendum, decided by three to one that they wanted to come in, I certainly would not object, provided the referendum was conducted democratically.

Why have the right hon. Gentleman's representations to Spain alone been in public and his many representations to other countries been in private?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman wants to keep picking at this—

I do.

In that case, let me give him the answer. If he consults his records, the right hon. Gentleman will find that these representations are not the only ones to have been made public. They concerned particularly sensitive issues that aroused deep emotion in many parts of Europe. The right hon. Gentleman may not share it, but many other people do.

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

I am not aware of any widespread problems concerning the treatment of British immigrants in South Africa, but where difficulties are encountered in individual cases our consular posts are always ready to offer assistance.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that on 25th June I was informed in the House that the new First Secretary at the Foreign Office would be visiting South Africa to discuss the problems of British immigrant workers? Did the First Secretary have any comments to make on his return, particularly about the possibility of assisted passages or loans for stranded British workers and their families, to enable them to return here after being lured out to that racialist country by misleading advertisements and propaganda?

I agree with my hon. Friend that some of the advertisements are very misleading about the conditions that people will find in South Africa. It is useful that my hon. Friend should have raised the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in Cyprus and the Government's policy on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in Cyprus.

With our partners in the Nine, Her Majesty's Government are working actively for a resumption of the intercommunal talks on a substantive basis. Although no progress was made in the meeting between Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash in New York in September, there is general agreement that this is the best forum for progress towards a settlement.

What representations have the Government made to the Turkish Government about the settling of Turkish families from the Turkish mainland in Northern Cyprus? What are the Government doing to try to ameliorate the plight of some 200,000 Greek Cypriote facing their second winter in the refugee camps?

Representations have been made to the Turkish authorities on the matter of refugees, and I believe that answers have been given to the hon. Gentleman on it. The best prospects for a settlement of the Greek Cypriot refugees is that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash should come to an agreement on the matter. I know of no other way that is likely to yield results.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the days when he was in opposition and was an advocate of Parliament as a whole, rather than the Executive, taking the major decisions in foreign affairs? How does he account for the fact that on 12th November in the United Nations the United Kingdom will be moving towards an altogether different concept in Cyprus, without the authority of Parliament, and that there is now every indication that we are moving towards a recognition of the Turkish zone in the island?

I do not recognise either the description of what I used to say in opposition or any contradiction with what I now do. I have always recognised that it is the responsibility of the Government to take executive decisions in these matters and that it is for Parliament to exercise its function of oversight, challenge, censure or even, occasionally, support.

Will Her Majesty's Government consult the American Government to see that very soon the refugees have proper housing? Grants should be given to enable the refugees to have prefabricated housing. President Makarios would like the refugees to be under proper cover this winter, and it could be done. That is the humane aspect.

The Government have been in the lead on this matter throughout. There is no other country that has done more to assist the refugees in Cyprus. I do not have the figures at my disposal, but I think that I can legitimately claim that the House and country have met their responsibilities. I shall certainly have discussions with other countries, including the Community and the United States, to see whether a combined effort can be made to deal with the plight of the refugees. That might even relieve us to some extent. I saw them in the depths of last winter and their plight is not one that I would want anyone to experience. There is constant communication with the Turkish Government. I cannot say when they are likely to put forward proposals. The exchanges that go on are confidential, but they are continual.

Although I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is important for the talks to go on, does he agree that any real settlement must go far beyond the competence of Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash and must be a matter of international affairs? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House a little more about any conversations or discussions that have been proceeding with the United States or the Turks, or with the committee set up by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at Kingston some months ago, to try to reach a political solution to this problem?

I had discussions with Mr. Caglayangil, the Turkish Foreign Minister, in New York on 25th September. The Prime Minister and I had discussions with Mr. Karamanlis, the Prime Minister of Greece, and Mr. Bitsios when they came to London about a fortnight ago. Both of them know our views clearly, which is that although we recognise that Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash are the prime executives in this matter, considerable influence can be exerted by the Turkish and the Greek Governments. I agree with my hon. Friend about that. We believe that this is the right way to pursue the matter. We shall continue to do so in this way. The Commonwealth experts have also met on two occasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in regard to Iceland's fishing limits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his talks with the Icelandic Government over fisheries limits.

An Icelandic delegation led by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the Icelandic Minister of Industry, visited London for official talks on 23rd and 24th October.

In the course of these discussions, will the Minister take into account the fact that Iceland has a quota of almost 22,000 tons of herring in the North Sea and off the West Coast and that it would be extremely favourable to our fishermen if, as part of this arrangement, Iceland's quota of herring could be transferred to our fishermen in exchange for any concessions?

That proposal would go far outside the established intentions that we have had since this issue was first mooted and discussed two years ago. The important objective, and one I still hope to achieve, is to make sure that those British fishermen who traditionally fish in the waters now claimed by Iceland should continue to do so. That must be my primary objective.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the manner in which he is pursuing the negotiations? Will he be fortified by the knowledge that all quarters of the House are anxious to see an agreement to the benefit of British fishermen?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I emphasise to him how important and helpful it has been to those of us who have carried on the British side of this discussion to know that the British political parties and all sections of British interests have been determined that an honourable and just settlement should come about. It enabled me to tell the representatives of the Icelandic Government that, although strong feelings were held on the subject in Iceland, similar feelings were held in Great Britain. That was a great help during the first two stages of the negotiations.

Although there must be some flexibility in negotiation when deciding the amount of fish to be caught in various areas off Iceland, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to maintain the rights of British fishermen to fish up to the limits under the present agreement? If, as we hope does not happen, agreement is not reached for the future, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British fishermen are given all necessary protection?

I can answer "Yes" to both questions. If the agreement is not renewed or replaced by 13th November, there is no doubt about what the rights of the British fishing industry are. Those rights have been established by the International Court of Justice. Clearly, the British fishing industry will continue to exercise those rights. We hope that they will be exercised with moderation and restraint. In so doing the British trawler industry must have the protection of Her Majesty's Government, and it will.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement to the effect that there will be adequate protection for British fishermen after 13th November if there is no settlement will be warmly welcomed in all the fishing ports, particularly on Humberside? Is he further aware that it is important to stress to the Icelandic Government the severe unemployment situation in many of our fishing areas, again particularly on Humberside? Is it not the case that the Icelandic standard of living is far in excess of the ordinary British fisherman's living standard, while the Icelandic unemployment figures are low compared with ours?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that these discussions should not be carried on as though Great Britain were a powerful and rich nation attempting to exploit a small and weak nation. Great Britain is attempting to establish, re-establish and confirm rights granted and confirmed under international legal conditions. We are attempting to do that with a country with which we have the friendliest relations, but a country whose income per head is a great deal higher than that in Great Britain and whose unemployment is negligible. Those factors have to be borne in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the United Kingdom will be represented at the World Energy Conference expected to open in Paris on 16th December.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will confirm that Great Britain will have independent representation at the forthcoming World Energy Conference.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave on 20th October. The issue is not settled yet.—[Vol. 898, c. 28–32.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Conservative Party election manifesto of October 1974 it was stated that a first essential requirement would be for the British people to retain control of the maximum benefits from our offshore oil? Does he agree that those sentiments enshrine great wisdom? Does he further accept that his present policy of securing the legitimate national interests in this forthcoming conference command wide support, both in the House and in the country?

On this exceptional occasion I am happy to agree with the Conservative Party manifesto. When the hon. Gentleman was reading it out I wondered whether he was addressing it to me or to some of his colleagues.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that during the referendum campaign some of us said publicly that the other EEC countries would want to control our great oil asset, and particularly the price at which it was sold? Was not that denied by Government spokesmen? Does my right hon. Friend recognise the strength of the support that he has for saying "No" with respect to this vital British asset?

There have been no attempts so far to secure control of British oil. That should be made clear in fairness to our Community partners. What we are discussing is whether an energy policy for the whole of the Community will be of benefit to all nine members, including Britain. So far that has not been demonstrated as far as I can see. What we are discussing is representation at a conference. This is a procedural matter and it is this procedure which has still to be settled.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a vital matter and not a procedural matter? Does he accept that it would destroy Britain's credibility to emulate the Grand Old Duke of York and to have a sell-out after standing so firm? In the discussions that have taken place, has it been clarified whether membership of the EEC would make it impossible for Britain to seek to join OPEC if we chose to do so?

No, I do not think it would. If that occasion arose, it might be that the OPEC rules would prevent our joining. I understand that one of the rules of OPEC is that oil must be a country's major export if it is to be an OPEC member. I do not think that it will be our major export, even though it will be an important export. I do not think that anything in the rules of the EEC would prevent our joining.

Has my right hon. Friend considered a compromise by which Britain might be designated as a nation to represent the EEC at the conference in return for allowing some other members of the EEC to represent the Community in the other committees at the conference?

I do not think that that question arises yet. There are a number of places for industrialised countries at the conference, the conference having been arranged by France and called by France. I have made a claim for one of them. That is how the situation stands.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that whereas Scotland will be an oil exporter within nine months, England never will be? Does he agree that the appropriate representative from the United Kingdom at the conference should be a Scottish Minister to represent the Scottish national interest in oil? In view of the current developments of devolution, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what representations have been made by his Department about concurrent Scottish representation at international conferences once the Scottish Assembly has been established?

The conference is concerned not only with oil but with international financial matters, development, help to developing countries and raw materials. I do not know of any special Scottish claim that exceeds that of Wales—

Oh!

or England, put Wales first because I represent a Welsh I constituency. I hope and believe that the United Kingdom Government will continue to represent the whole of the United Kingdom.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is genuine concern that in his attempts to defend one British interest he has damaged other important British interests? Is it not a fact that, apart from North Sea oil, we have a vital interest in the cohesion of the Community and in the success of the forthcoming conference, which, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, covers a wide spectrum? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make his maximum effort to ensure that in defending what be believes to be our interest he will not in any way damage other equally important interests?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better settle his affairs with his own party before he takes that kind of line. I know what the right hon. Gentleman is doing.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with EEC Ministers regarding the Arab-Israeli situation; and what is his policy toward the Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territories.

I discuss the Arab-Israeli situation regularly with my colleagues from the rest of the Nine, the last occasion being on 18th October: the details of our discussions are of course confidential. I regret any action by a party to the dispute which is likely to make the achievement of a just and lasting solution in the Middle East more difficult.

As my right hon. Friend's knowledge of Zionist settlements in that part of the Middle East may have improved since he replied to a Question on 5th August, and following that assumed improvement in his knowledge, has he made any direct representations to the Israeli Government on this matter?

The answer to the first part of the question is "Yes". The answer to the second part is "No".

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at the United Nations, at which the votes of the Arab-Soviet bloc on Middle Eastern matters make a persistent mockery of the organisation, the recent united efforts of the EEC countries to prevent the isolation of Israel are as fair as they are important?

I do not wish to embark on a review of the general attitude of the Arab States towards Israel, or vice versa, in a supplementary answer. What is clear is that the recent agreement between Egypt and Israel has carried the matter a stage further. I hope that this will be pursued in relation to Syria and Israel.

Is it not the case that the existence of Israeli settlements in Arab occupied territory is inimical to peaceful progress in that part of the world? Will the right hon. Gentleman urge EEC Ministers to take a common line and to make representations to Israel on this matter?

I do not think that that will emerge except as part of another step or as part of a comprehensive settlement.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is partisan and unacceptable that the EEC Parliament should make political protests about bomb attacks within Israel by guerrilla groups but make no protest about the official action of the armed forces of Israel, both military and air, against Lebanon?

It is not for me to comment on the activities of the European Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is taking to ensure that the United Kingdom acts independently within the Common Market on all matters affecting the control and distribution of North Sea oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of his attitude towards oil policy, recently announced to the European Council of Ministers, and in connection with the forthcoming energy conference, whether it is now his intention to bring about a European energy policy within which the United Kingdom will play a full part.

I would refer hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) on 21st October.—[Vol. 898, c. 211.]

What is the point of seemingly fighting so hard for a seat at the conference table when from an earlier answer by my right hon. Friend it seems that we are in the process of backing down? What is the point of fighting so hard when at the same time my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is so negligent about speeding up the participation plans for North Sea oil? Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Germany is taking full advantage of the delay by carving out large chunks of North Sea oil territory for West German companies?

My hon. Friend's question seems to be more than 90 per cent. directed towards my right hon. Friend rather than to me. I shall gladly have a word with my right hon. Friend on many important subjects because I value his advice, his experience, his skill and his constant attendance.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is at present no provision, either within the treaties or in any subsequent Act of the Community, depriving Britain of the control of its North Sea asset?

Yes, I gladly do that. I did so in answer to an earlier question and I do so again now. There is nothing that can deprive us of the control of our assets. If we decide that it is to our advantage to have a European energy policy, that is a matter for us. If we decide that we do not want to take part in such a policy, that, too, is a matter for us.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if decisions are taken at the forthcoming energy conference which are considered contrary to the national interests of Scotland, there is no guarantee that the forthcoming Scottish Government will underwrite them?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says, but I take it that the independent Scottish Parliament will accept any international treaties that have been entered into by its predecessor.

Has the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 690, which gives him full backing in his stand on British representation at the international energy conference? That motion is signed by 175 Members, of whom 172 are Labour Members.

Including me.

Including my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who, for his own reasons, wants to make that point. Will my right hon. Friend give a clear statement that, contrary to Press reports, there will be no compromise and that the Government will be firm in their view that we should have our own seat at this important conference?

I do not wish to comment on Press reports. I have made no approaches to any other Government on this matter—except to say to the Nine and the United States Government that we claim a separate seat. If anybody has any proposals to put to us on that matter, I shall consider them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a considered reply to my earlier supplementary question? Is it not a fact that we have an interest in North Sea oil and also in the cohesion of the Community and in what he describes as procedural matters going to the heart of the Community? Will he give an undertaking that we shall make a maximum effort to reconcile these differing British interests?

The continuuing process is an attempt to reconcile differing interests. Sometimes they can be reconciled; at other times they cannot be. I do not know whether it will be possible to reconcile those interests. It is for others to say, and they understand our position. If they wish to reconcile interests, it will be up to them to come to me with propositions, which we shall be glad to entertain. As for the future of the Community, I promise the right hon. Gentleman that I have seen it go through worse things than this, and with the use of much stronger language. He should not be too worried about the situation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he can now state when the Council of Ministers is likely to receive the Tindemans report on political union.

The Belgian Prime Minister was asked by the Community Heads of Government to prepare the report by the end of 1975. M. Tindemans has not yet announced exactly when he expects to complete his study.

Did the Minister see reports last week to the effect that weekend discussions about political union had been attended by the Belgian and Dutch Prime Ministers, the West German Chancellor, Ministers from France and Italy and also my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)? Although this was presumably a private meeting, can we be told whether a British Minister was present or invited? Are the Government satisfied that there has been an adequate dialogue between the Government and M. Tindemans to ensure that more realistic views about political union are easily understood by the British people?

I have no comment to make on that weekend meeting. No British Minister was there or, so far as I know, invited. It was a private occasion. The hon. Gentleman will understand that, as important decisions on this matter are approached, there will be meetings at all levels in the Community. I assure the House that when we are in a position to take soundings on the report and to make recommendations about our attitude, there will be proper consultation with all interests, including all the political parties.

How does my right hon. Friend propose to consult the British people about political union?

I hope that we can do so as successfully as we did on 5th June last year. [An HON. MEMBER: "Another referendum?"] The method is something about which my hon. Friend should not make any assumptions. The report produced by M. Tindemans will give advice on a number of complex matters. It will be for Her Majesty's Government, the House of Commons and various other institutions in Great Britain to decide how they stand on that issue. We must then determine where Britain's interest lies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received since the EEC referendum on any legal impediments to the enacting by Parliament of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Community.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that most people will accept that the desirability of Parliament ever legislating Britain out of the Community would have to take account of the results of the referendum and of any future expression of opinion by the public in an election or otherwise? Does he recall that successive Lord Chancellors have emphatically declared that there is no legal impediment to Parliament taking this course, if it so wishes? Will he reafirm that that is still the view of Her Majesty's Government?

I distinctly remember the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor on 28th May in which he referred to judgments made by his predecessors confirming the legal point made by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend is right to say that the legal position is clear—namely, that a British Parliament does not commit its successors and that the necessary legislation could be passed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received about direct elections to the European Parliament and on the electoral system to be used in such elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to announce the Government's conclusions on the question of direct elections to the European Parliament.

If the hon. Member means formal representations from individuals or organisations, the answer is "None, Sir". The whole question is currently the subject of discussions in the Community, and we are giving it careful study. The Government's position will be announced in due course.

Since this is not an issue where our short-term national interests apparently oblige us to put at risk the cohesion of the Community, could we not, for once, show ourselves to be positive and constructive by pressing for early direct elections on the basis of fair representation?

The hon. Gentleman will know that we are committed by the treaty to which we are now party eventually to take part in direct elections. He will also know that the arranging of direct elections and the taking of decisions about them are a complicated business. Many questions have to be answered about organisation, size of constituency and many other things. I am sure that the House does not want us to rush towards a complicated decision that in the end might turn out to be against the interests of this Parliament and this country.

Does the Minister believe that direct elections are possible by 1978? Furthermore, whatever else the Government may decide, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that we shall not try to harmonise election procedures for direct elections but stick to our own procedures?

Anybody who believes in the possibility of the holding of elections by 1978 is being very optimistic indeed. I do not wish to comment on any of the details of how those elections should be held. They will have to be discussed when we take a considered view over the next months and years. Until we can look at the matter as a whole, I do not wish to make any comment on individual suggestions.

In such a complicated matter, would it not be wise to recognise that, whatever the final decision, preparations for direct elections will have to be spread over a considerable period of time? Therefore, would it not be wise for the Government to set up some kind of machinery now and to begin to consider the matter and its implications so that the British public can be adequately informed?

As to future processes and the way in which decisions should be carried out, there will have to be means by which the parties are consulted and by which people's views may be built into Government recommendations. I am not sure whether the time is exactly ripe for that, but I am sure that the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is right.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that so long as the European Parliament is as weak and uninfluential as it is, it does not matter whether members are elected or nominated? Will he bear in mind one important argument? If there are direct elections, will he see that nominations are not confined to Members of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords?

The wisdom of the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary commends itself to me, although I am reluctant to comment on individual suggestions about elections to the European Parliament. As for the power and influence of the European Parliament; we have to understand that it exists according to the treaties and that we are committed to direct elections. In addition, there are a number of useful jobs that the Parliament can do. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a speech in Liverpool some weeks ago, suggested that the European Parliament might have some powers over Government expenditure—not so much a question of control, but of examining whether moneys had been spent prudently—a power such as that already exercised by Committees of the House. If we want that kind of scrutiny, we shall have to take the European Parliament seriously, and that Her Majesty's Government certainly intend to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards a further enlargement of the European Community by the admission of Greece.

Yes, Sir.

Will the Secretary of State confirm that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government will be in no way prejudiced towards these negotiations by continuing opposition inside Greece to certain aspects of the newly promulgated Greek constitution?

No, Sir, I do not think we are involved in the internal situation there. We welcomed Greece's application when it was made, and the Prime Minister confirmed our unreserved support to Mr. Karamanlis when he visited London earlier this month.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all parties in Greece, both Government and Opposition, are united in their anxiety and desire for Greece to become a full member of the EEC at the earliest opportunity? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that we in Britain are not only in favour of the accession of Greece to the EEC but wish to ease Greece's future opportunities by the appropriate transitional arrangements that may be required?

That is looking rather a long way ahead. A negotiating mandate has first to be prepared and is now under study by the Commission. It will be brought to the Community members in due course—I hope by the end of this year—and then we shall have to see how the negotiations can be conducted.