asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government intend to review their policy towards Hong Kong.

Her Majesty's Government's policy is to administer Hong Kong in the interests of those who have chosen to live there. The way in which this policy can best be implemented is naturally kept under review. My right hon. Friend will have a first-hand opportunity to examine the situation when he visits Hong Kong in early May.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that under the cover of vast wealth in Hong Kong lurk areas of human deprivation in relation to the right to vote, social conditions and civil rights? Is not that a disgrace for this or any other Government? Will my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary take the opportunity when he visits Hong Kong to discuss the value of the £40 million defence commitment to the colony?

Certainly my right hon. Friend will be looking at conditions widely. The Hong Kong Government have had formidable problems dealing with the social conditions in the territory, particularly in absorbing large numbers of immigrants from China. The population of Hong Kong has increased sevenfold. It is a major task, but progress is being made, particularly in the planning of a long-term programme for social welfare.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Hong Kong must be looked at in the Asian context? The colony has made great progress over the past two or three years in a period when the world has faced grave economic crises. Will he give the House an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will support the Hong Kong Government in their efforts?

Yes, I certainly give that assurance. The people of Hong Kong expect it. It is true that Hong Kong's record in a variety of respects compares favourably with that of other parts of Asia, but we are aware of deficiencies. The Governor is closely in touch with us, and the Hong Kong Government are doing all they can.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that Hong Kong is unique among those few dependencies left to be administered in the old Empire? has he studied the Fabian pamphlet by Joe England? If so, will he comment on the suggestion, which has been made in the House before, that although there are not direct elections to the Legislative Council, we should nominate as members of the urban council some who have been elected in some shape or form by the people on the pavements?

I have seen that pamphlet. It contains some important ideas which we are examining. The Governor himself has said that there is room for change in the Legislative Council while retaining its essential balance. There is value in having a broader cross-section of the life of Hong Kong represented.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Governor and the whole of the Hong Kong Government recognise the need to associate the people of the colony as closely as possible within the framework of government? Does he not agree that they have done magnificent work in building up substitutes for democracy by neighbourhood councils and so on? It is Communist China more than anything else which makes progress difficult.

It has to be recognised that Hong Kong's geographical and constitutional position—and it is obviously not moving towards independence—create problems which are almost unique. We have great confidence in the Governor and those who advise him.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Spanish Foreign Minister.

On 2nd March in London.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Spanish Foreign Minister again, will be give him some encouragement and sympathetic understanding of Spain's desire to join the EEC and to the possibility of Spain's joining NATO—although admittedly that is in the future? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the steps taken towards democracy in Spain are important, but must be encouraged and allowed to proceed at their own pace?

I certainly agree that the Spanish Government should be encouraged in their plans for liberalization, particularly in relation to the introduction of such rights as universal suffrage and free collective bargaining. It will be interesting for me to hear the views of the Spanish Foreign Minister on these matters, and that will help me to determine what the view of Her Majesty's Government should be in relation to both the EEC and NATO.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say anything about contracts with Socialist parties in Spain?

I had contact with the Socialist parties in Spain in my capacity as Treasurer of the Labour Party when I went to Copenhagen recently for the conference of Socialist leaders. I was very encouraged by what they had to say and by their desire to change the framework, but to work within it without violence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that it is he and not the Secretary of State for Employment who is responsible for our relations with Spain?

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend, whose record on behalf of freedom in Spain is well known and stands in marked contrast to that of the defenders of Franco Spain on the Benches opposite, consulted me before he made his speech, and I was very happy for him to say what he said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of British Caribbean territories towards independence.

Constitutional advances have been or are being introduced in Montserrat, Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos. The Premiers of the West Indies Associated States recently agreed amongst themselves that they should seek full independence at an early date. Preliminary discussions on this are now taking place with the Premiers.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it may be wise to make haste slowly in giving independence to some of the smaller islands if these territories are to have the best chance of political and economic prosperity after independence?

We shall proceed at the pace at which the islands themselves wish to proceed.

What is the precise position about Anguilla these days?

The Anguilla constitution is now in force. If there are any further discussions about independence for St. Kitts and Nevis, the question of Anguilla will have to be taken into account and the wishes of the islanders will be respected.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reply he has received from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the release of Rudolf Hess from Spandau Prison.

The Soviet Embassy has now made clear that the Soviet response to our recent representations on the release of Rudolf Hess is negative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this vindictive and intransigent attitude of the Soviet Government will be deeply deplored by hundreds of thousands of people in the Western world? Will he consult the French and Americans about reducing the absurdly large size of the military guard at Spandau Prison?

Both the French and American Governments made parallel representations to the Soviet authorities. I inquired into the extent of the guard when I was in Berlin recently. I understand that, taking into account the four countries concerned, there are 20 warders and 104 soldiers, who take it in turns in their tours of duty one month in four to guard this one man. But I see no prospect of a change in the situation at the moment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that this attitude by the Russian Government is consistent with the spirit of Basket III of the Helsinki Conference?

I do not think that it has anything to do with Basket III of the Helsinki Conference. The imprisonment of Rudolf Hess arises from agreements made at the end of the war, and we should depart from any one of them at our peril, because in doing so we might upset others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his discussions with the Government of the People's Republic of China will include the possibility of developing a joint approach to counter Soviet threats to world peace in Angola and elsewhere.

As I told the House on 28th January, I hope in Peking to have wide-ranging discussions of the international situation. As regards Angola, our normal criteria for recognition are now met. We have decided to recognise today the People's Republic of Angola and its Government in Luanda.

Will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with the Chinese their possible co-operation in containing further Soviet expansion in Southern Africa, recognising that that expansion is a threat to resources and communications, of which the Chinese have had great experience?

I cannot undertake to do that. It will be for the Chinese Government to decide what subjects they wish to raise with me. I do not think that I should wish to raise this matter with them.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, if he discusses this matter with the Government of the Chinese People's Republic, that their attitude towards Angola, like the attitude of the Opposition, derives less from their concern about the people of Angola than from their hatred of the Soviet Union, and that therefore he should recognise that the Government of the People's Republic of China are acting as international opportunists?

I have advice from all quarters on these matters and I do not think that it is my responsibility today to enter into a discussion about the relationship between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. We prefer to be on good terms with both.

As the right hon. Gentleman has confirmed the report which appeared a short while ago on the tape, may I ask two questions about Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the MPLA? First, while clearly there are arguments for doing so, can the right hon. Gentleman find any precedent for accepting that a Government are in control of a territory when that control rests upon the presence of a large foreign army? Secondly, what assurance did he receive from the MPLA before according recognition that it would respect the territorial integrity of the British colony of Rhodesia?

The right hon. Gentleman asks about circumstances in which recognition is conferred. This is a long-standing practice. It is

"to recognise de jure a Government, established by revolutionary action, when Her Majesty's Government considers that the new Government enjoys…"

"…enjoys, with a reasonable prospect of permanence, the obedience of the mass of the population and the effective control of much the greater part of the territory of the State concerned."

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of his efforts to secure the release of Mr. and Mrs. White-cross from detention in Argentina.

We have continued to urge upon the Argentine authorities the desirability of an early decision on the applications for expulsion made by Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross on 10th December.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Whitecross's parents, who live in my constituency, would wish me to thank our representatives for the efforts they have made so far? Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Argentine Government's present detention powers in this respect run out on 10th March? Will he convey to the Argentine Government this House's hope that Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross will be free well within that period, and that this could play a useful part in helping to improve relations between our two countries?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. Our consul in Buenos Aires has done everything possible to help Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross, and particularly in the family's domestic circumstances here. The 60-day rule expires on 10th March, and only yesterday I made direct representations to the Argentine charge d'affaires in London that the Argentine Government should release Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross as speedily as possible.

Will my hon. Friend continue to make representations in this regard for both Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross? I realise that one of the problems is that Mrs. Whitecross is an Argentinian. Will he continue to make representations for their release as speedily as possible so that they can come back to this country?

We have made representations on behalf of both Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross, although only Mr. Whitecross is a British citizen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the United States Government concerning the raising within the United States of funds used partly for the provision of weapons for the Irish Republican Army.

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 10th February.—[Vol 905, c. 115–16.]

As 85 per cent. of the weapons found in the possession of the IRA are of United States origin, will the Government step up their activities to make the facts of the situation in Northern Ireland known to the leaders of the Irish-American community in the United States and ask our American allies how they would feel if fund-raising took place in Europe to raise money to buy weapons to kill Americans in America?

My information coincides with that of the hon. Member. About 85 per cent. of the weapons used by the Provisional IRA and recovered by security forces are manufactured in the United States. The hon. Member makes a good point in his last remarks. I understand that the principal fund-raising organisation in the United States is sometimes called NORAID. It is believed to be sending funds at the rate of about £100,000 a year. I do not think that that money goes to welfare or to helping the sick. We take every opportunity to make these facts known to American senators and congressmen as well as to the Administration.

If the Americans persist in giving assistance to the IRA in this way, have we not a very good answer? Could we not bundle American bases out of this country and tell them to keep out?

That would be an answer. It is the answer I would expect from my hon. Friend, but it is not one which the majority of the House would want to adopt.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we appreciate the efforts which both British and Irish Ministers have made, and are making, to end this infamous traffic? Is he also aware that the inclination of some of us enthusiastically to celebrate the bicentenary of the American Republic will be lessened if American citizens continue to be the paymasters and suppliers of the IRA?

I am grateful for what the hon. Member said at the beginning of his question. I have no reason to believe that any responsible opinion in the United States supports what is happening in this matter. It is up to all of us to redouble our efforts.

Although it is a lesser part of the problem, has my right hon. Friend been in touch with the Canadians on this matter?

The source of funds there is very much smaller.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that many Americans of Irish descent give money to NORAID imagining that it will be spent for peaceful and compassionate purposes when in fact it goes straight to the gunmen? Will he invite Mr. Cosgrave, who, I understand, is to visit the United States in the near future, to reinforce his representations, as they may carry even more weight coming from the Republic?

I take note of what the hon. Member has said. I know that Ministers from the Republic have been very outspoken in their condemnation of these funds when they have visited the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice is given by consular officials to British journalists in South Africa about South African law on Press freedom.

Consular officials are not qualified, nor are they permitted, to interpret local law. None of our consular officials—or other members of the Diplomatic Service—in South Africa has been asked for or has offered advice about local legislation affecting Press freedom

Might not some of our consular officials explain to British journalists in South Africa that the Republic has such a managed news service that many South Africans will never know what is taking place in Angola? Could they not point to the example of Mr. Donald Wood, the editor of the East London Daily Dispatch, who found himself in prison for six months for writing a story about the South African Special Branch?

The short answer is that journalists visiting South Africa should find out the facts for themselves. I am sure they do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his meeting with Rhodesian African leaders.

I was glad to accept a proposal from Mr. Nkomo that he should visit London from 1st to 5th February during an adjournment in the current talks between himself and Mr. Smith. My discussions with Mr. Nkomo were wide-ranging and dealt with the political situation in Southern Africa generally as well as with the particular problem of Rhodesia. I have agreed with Mr. Nkomo that details of our discussions should remain confidential.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that time is running out for the illegal régime and that, if it does not have serious constitutional talks to meet the serious aspirations of the majority of the people in Rhodesia, it will be taken to the barricades? Does he also agree that, just as in the past a number of nations have refused to recognise this illegal régime, no one will get it out of the difficulties it gets itself into?

I have very recently pointed out my hon. Friend's general sentiments to those in control of Rhodesia at the present time.

Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to clarify what would be the Government's reaction to the introduction of either Russian weapons or Cuban troops into Rhodesia before the Government have discharged their constitutional responsibility?

The Government would have a clear responsibility in Rhodesia provided the régime acknowledged Britain's authority, with all that that entails. I see no sign of that so far.

In view of the rather gloomy views expressed by President Kaunda about impending civil war in Rhodesia, would my right hon. Friend make known to Mr. Smith and the Rhodesian régime, by whatever means available to him, that there is a very urgent need to reach a settlement in the constitutional talks now taking place?

I am continuing to do this. One of my very senior and most trusted officials was in Southern Africa only 10 days ago and proceeded directly to Washington in order to discuss these matters. I can assure the House that, although it is not possible to make many public statements on this matter, the seriousness of the situation is being conveyed to Mr. Smith and the European in Rhodesia and elsewhere. I trust they will take due note of it.

In view of the potential danger of the situation in Southern Africa to the whole of the Western world, has the Foreign Secretary had discussions with his counterparts in NATO with a view to bringing influence to bear on the Smith régime to show that Rhodesia might act as a catalyst for the whole of Southern Africa and provide the circumstances for an explosion which could affect the whole of the Western world?

I have had many discussions both bilaterally and on a multilateral basis on this matter recently. I should like to make clear to Mr. Smith and those who follow him that the sure way to avoid the threat of bloodshed in Rhodesia is for the illegal régime to agree to meet the legitimate aspirations of the African majority and to do so very soon.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that it is the serious desire of everyone in the House that a peaceful solution should be reached on the Rhodesian constitutional issue and that the last thing we want is any further bloodshed? Will he convey to the South African Government that if they send troops into Rhodesia they will provoke the kind of backlash that will lead to a very serious loss of life? Is he aware that we are all certain that he will do everything possible to reach a settlement in Rhodesia?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his question. There is no doubt about the extreme gravity of the situation that Mr. Smith is facing. He has very little time left to come to an accommodation with Mr. Nkomo. That has been pointed out by me and by surrounding Governments in Africa on all sides of the question. I hope that he will soon meet Mr. Nkomo and give a positive response to his proposals.

I appreciate that it is right for the right hon. Gentleman to exercise the maximum pressure on Mr. Smith to come to terms with Mr. Nkomo, but will he make clear to Mr. Nkomo, and perhaps more widely, that, if the talks were broken off and the Africans decided to resort to terrorism and invasion from Mozambique as the alternative method of settling the problem, we could not be a party to continuing sanctions in circumstances which would make us accomplices of the guerrillas?

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Africans and not Mr. Nkomo deciding on guerrilla activity, and I think what he said is right. If only Mr. Smith would realise that Mr. Nkomo is probably the last chance he has of avoiding guerrilla activity which will spread until Rhodesia is engulfed! The future of sanctions in relation to a situation that might arise is a hypothetical question. I cannot say that sanctions would fall away unless the regime accepted a return to legality. That has always been the test.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about constitutional talks on the future of Rhodesia, and about recent contacts with Mr. Joshua Nkomo and Mr. Garfield Todd.

The present situation in Rhodesia makes it vital that the opportunity to reach a peaceful settlement presented by the current talks between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo is not missed. But I think we should respect the decision of the parties themselves to make no public comment for the present on the substance of the talks.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while Mr. Todd's conduct on his visit here has been exemplary, as the Rhodesian Herald said, he should be returned on 1st March not to detention but to the conference table? He is one of the few white people in Rhodesia trusted by the African majority. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that that comes about?

I do not think that it would help Mr. Todd if I were to take any steps of that nature. I agree with my hon. Friend that Mr. Todd's wisdom could add a great deal to the reconcilia- tion of the Smith régime with Mr. Nkomo.

As the Foreign Secretary could not tell the House that be could get assurances from the MPLA before recognising it that it will respect the territory and constitution of Rhodesia, will he assure us that the Government are making contingency plans in case the Cuban troops present in Angola do not show such respect?

I suppose that question arises out of the subject of the future of Rhodesia. Certainly, the presence of Cuban troops, to which I drew attention as early as anyone, represents a potential danger to the neighbouring countries of Southern Africa. Although they may have been invited into Angola by the MPLA, they have certainly not been invited into any neighbouring countries. In our judgment, it would be by far the best thing if both the Cuban and the South African troops were to withdraw from Angola. Rhodesia's security and a good life for the people of Rhodesia will be best safeguarded if Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo come to an agreement on the basis of the six principles that were laid down many years ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new instruments he proposes to ensure that British exporters enjoy the maximum support from his Department in their search for profitable trade overseas; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend announced on 14th January a special review of our overseas interests, requirements and representation. He will consider with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade any recommendations which the Central Policy Review Staff may make in the field of overseas trade promotion.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will the CPRS investigate the possibility of setting up a structure similar to that which covers the development division in the matter of trade to co-ordinate our trading activities in areas of continents rather than dealing with them separately on a country-by-country basis?

That is an interesting proposal which the CPRS could well consider. My right hon. Friend will be putting forward ideas for consideration by the CPRS.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs if he has received a copy of the December issue of the IAEA bulletin.

Yes, Sir.

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to consider the views expressed in that bulletin by Dr. Eklund, the Director General of the Agency, in which he suggests that the export of nuclear facilities should be confined to countries which are either parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty or which accept safeguards on all nuclear installations? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will press this Agency view in the course of the discussions in the Nuclear Suppliers Group?

Yes, I give that absolute assurance. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been full participants in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty Review Conference. Under Article 3(2) of the Non-Proliferation Treaty the United Kingdom and other countries may export source or special fissionable material to a non-nuclear weapon State only if that State has concluded a safe-guards agreement with IAEA. We shall press strongly both points raised by Dr. Eklund in that article.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now sever diplomatic relations with the Government of Chile.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now take steps to break off diplomatic relations with Chile.

I would refer my hon. Friends to the written reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fletcher) on 11th February.—[Vol. 905. c. 238.]

I appreciate my right hon. Friend's concern to do what he considers to be in the best interests of British citizens in Chile, but does he accept that it might be in their interests—and would certainly be in the interests of the people of Chile—if the Government gave an unequivocal demonstration that we as a civilised nation are no longer prepared to tolerate the total disregard for human rights shown by the Chilean régime?

What about the Soviet Union?

What about the Soviet Union? We know what goes on.

We do not break off relations with the Soviet Union.

Order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. After Questions, if the hon. Member will be so kind.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the chance to reply. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Ovenden) is anxious about these matters, and of course we keep them constantly in mind. The Chilean régime can be in no doubt about world opinion of the régime and the way it is carried on. Breaking off diplomatic relations would not help the Chilean political prisoners whom we are doing our best to assist at the moment, the refugees or the British subjects, of whom there are about 4,000 in Chile.

In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's present anxieties, has any estimate been made of the saving to the Foreign Office Vote which would be achieved by breaking off diplomatic relations with all the Governments of which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite from time to time dis-approve?

Yes, Sir, but there would be some compensating expenditure on a hostel for ex-ambassadors.

Given the nature of the despicable Fascist régime in Chile and its treatment of political prisoners, is not the only course of action we can take to break off diplomatic relations and dissociate ourselves from that régime?

I have already answered that question. In my judgment it would not help British interests so to do.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition are glad that he does not intend to break off diplomatic relations with Chile? We hope that he will take the same robust line in response to the pressure he will no doubt get from his hon. Friends below the Gangway in relation to the Soviet Union.

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said and I look forward to the great support that he will give me on the question of Angola.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what formal recognition Her Majesty's Government propose to accord to the Bantustans set up within the Republic of South Africa.

The question does not arise because at present Her Majesty's Government regard the Homelands as forming an integral part of the Republic of South Africa. If a request for recognition as an independent State were to be received from a Homeland it would be considered against our well-established legal criteria for recognition and in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time. We would have to be satisfied about the independence of such a territory including its handling of its external relations.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I hope the question will not be considered at all? Is he aware that both the United Nations and the Organisation of African Unity are totally opposed to the Bantustan policy? Could he explain why this country alone among almost all other countries has accepted a delegation of Bantustan leaders, who are paid nominees of the South African Government?

We see the Bantustan policy as being an integtal part of apart- heid, which the present Government have on many occasions strongly condemned. Therefore, we have condemned the policy of the Bantustan.

Let them resign their position first.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition absolutely agree that this issue should not be prejudged and that we should wait and see exactly how the Bantustans turn out? Does he agree that many of the leaders of the Bantustans have fought hard on behalf of the rights of their kinfolk in difficult circumstances and deserve encouragement and not disparagement?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question we have to await a decision. That decision may well arise fairly soon if the Transkei is declared independent in October, so it is a fairly urgent issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his policy towards promoting better relations between young people within the Common Market.

We consider it important that relations among young people in Common Market countries should improve, in a spirit of co-operation and understanding. To this end Her Majesty's Government encourage and actively support exchanges and contacts between British and other European youth.

What steps are the Government proposing now that the Heath-Pompidou funds are at an end, the Rippon package is exhausted and the Helsinki Basket has not yet started to be filled? Will the Minister reverse his disastrous policy on reducing grants payable to the British Youth Council and opting out of the European Youth Foundation, which policy, if he continues to pursue it, will result in British youth being splendidly isolated?

I was not quite certain whether the hon. Gentleman said that Rippon was exhausted or that the funds were exhausted. However, I should like to point out that we shall be spending in the financial year 1976–77 a total of £176,000 on youth exchanges with Common Market countries. Certainly the figure for the following financial year is reduced, but not surprisingly so in view of demands for the limitation of public expenditure, coming particularly from the Opposition Benches.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is much better if Governments try not to get youth together artificially but to do as the Liverpool Trades Council did long before there was a Common Market or even discussions about a Common Market—to have an exchange of young trade union workers between West German trade unions and Liverpool workers? Could not this idea be extended to all sections of the working-class movement in Britain?

I am ready to pay my tribute to the Liverpool Trades Council at any available opportunity. I agree with my hon. Friend's view. The more trade unionists can be involved in exchange schemes, the better. A good deal of the money concerned is involved not in Government-sponsored projects but in assisting projects which have been put up by voluntary organisations.

I believe that the Liver-pool Trades Council has brief questions and answers.

Does the Minister agree that one way of improving relations between young people in Europe would be to grant all of them equality of opportunity? In this context will he please study the report called "Euroscot", which is published by the Scottish Standing Conference of Voluntary Youth Organisations and which shows that young Scots are seriously disadvantaged in economic factors as compared with their European counterparts?

I have not seen that report. If the hon. Lady will send me a copy, I shall be glad to see it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government have now fixed a date for the publication of their planned White Paper on European direct elections.

A Green Paper entitled "Direct Elections to the European Assembly" was published yesterday.

Does the Secretary of State agree that that paper could only be described as disappointing, negative and defeatist? It is not a White Paper, as expected originally, with green edges. It is not even a Green Paper. It is simply a yellow paper. The Government are setting the clock back with their proposals and are proceeding right from the beginning again. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that more progress should have been made and that the paper does not deal with any of the more important questions? Does he agree that at least the Government should now reaffirm that 1978 is the target for direct elections to the European Parliament?

That was a series of generalised observations to which I think the answer basically is "No, Sir." The purpose of the paper is to bring before the House of Commons and the public generally the questions which must be resolved in this very important matter. Those questions are there outlined. I hope that a debate will be arranged. I have already said that I am willing to meet any of the parties wishing to discuss the matter, and we can proceed from there to the European Council on 1st April.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, because the future powers of the European Assembly are unknown, the constitutional implications of direct elections are very considerable? As these implications are not discussed in the Green Paper, would it not be a good idea to present another document outlining the possible constitutional effects of direct elections?

I am not an astrologer and cannot foretell the future. The powers of the Assembly, such as they are at present, are set out in the Green Paper as published. It is on this that the issue will be decided. If this Parliament decides to transfer any further powers at a later time, it will be for it to do so in due course as it thinks wise. There is no point in trying to anticipate what is going to happen in these matters when no one's opinion on the subject can be valid.

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why it is that in a Green Paper remarkably free of assertion the Government choose to emphasise that they see an advantage in coinciding European Parliament elections with local government elections in May? One would have thought that to confuse two very different levels of government would be a mistake.

That is probably a matter for debate, but basically it is the case that most if not all of the countries would prefer the elections to be held in May or June. I cannot envisage canvassers exhausted by local government elections then coming out for another three weeks "on the knocker" for European Parliament elections. Subject to discussions in the House, my view is that if we run them both together we shall probably stand a better chance of getting a decent vote.

As a practical politician, my right hon. Friend must know that we shall have great difficulty in getting anyone to take an interest in direct elections, particularly when they cover about 10 constituencies. As far as I am aware, there is no indication of what extra powers this Assembly will have after direct elections. Will the Government at least take greater pains to explain to people what they have in mind after direct elections?

This is a hobgoblin. The powers of the Assembly are laid down. They are there fixed by statute. Only this and the other Parliaments can transfer further powers to it. I do not see that we can go into that position at present when no one knows what further powers are to be transferred, or, indeed, if I read my colleagues aright, whether anyone will want to transfer further powers.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that although there will certainly be dissenting voices, and although we are disappointed with some of the content, or lack of content, of the Green Paper, the Opposition have for some time accepted the principle of direct elections to the European Parliament—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I was glad that I referred to "dissenting voices". We have for some time accepted the principle of direct elections to the European Parliament as a welcome and necessary strengthening of democratic control in the Community.

This looks like being a diverting controversy. Hon. Members opposite should be kind to their Front Bench, which is in enough distress as it is.

We cannot debate that matter now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made towards a further revision of the EEC's relationship with Spain; and if he will make a statement.

The Council of Ministers agreed on 9th February to a resumption of the trade negotiations with Spain suspended last year. Relations on a broader basis will depend on the course of developments in Spain.

I recognise that we are not solely responsible for the formulation of policy in the EEC towards Spain. Will the Foreign Secretary none the less again reassure the House that the Government will make every effort to encourage the new Spanish Government to become our partners in Europe?

I think I answered that question earlier this afternoon. I repeat, it must depend on the extent to which Spain moves in a democratic direction, looks to universal suffrage, and gives the opportunity for free collective bargaining to trade unions in that country.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present Spain is still very much a police State? Does he further agree with the sentiment, expressed at that great rally in London last Saturday, that before there can be any closer relationship with Spain it must be made into a fully democratic State?

I think that the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question repeated what I have just said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet his EEC colleagues.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet his EEC colleagues.

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

At a ministerial meeting on political co-operation in Luxembourg on 23rd and 24th February.

When the Minister meets his EEC colleagues, will he raise the subject of the appallingly high unemployment figures which obtain in Britain at the moment? What help does he expect from his EEC colleagues to alleviate the situation?

My right hon. Friend has already referred to this matter publicly and has urged the Commission to make a study of it. There are a number of Community countries whose unemployment problems are substantially more serious than our own. Therefore, it is a common problem within the Community.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that he was not an astrologer. However, do the Government foresee great difficulties about the entry of Greece into the Community? The idea of having to translate all the documents into and out of Greek may be a minor problem, but there is the major problem that Greece is not an industrial society in the same sense as other members of the Community. What is the Government's attitude towards the entry of Greece into the Community?

My right hon. Friend said that he was not an astrologer; he did not say that he was not a linguist. There are problems to be faced. My hon. Friend will know that the Council unanimously pronounced in favour of the Greek application for full membership of the Community. It was right that it should do so. It was agreed that preliminary work should be undertaken rapidly to allow negotiations to be opened as soon as possible. The transition period will have to be considered.

In view of the Tindemans Report, will the Minister explain to his EEC colleagues how he expects Britain to move towards economic and monetary union at the same pace as France and Germany? Is it not a bitter comment on the economic mismanagement by this Government that Mr. Tindemans should appear to have relegated Britain to second division status?

The Conservative Government took us out of the snake. I do not think that we need go further on the matter.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his European colleagues, will he inquire how direct elections are to be paid for by the political organisations and by the Government? The Green Paper appears to make no mention whatever of this aspect of the affair.

This is an issue which the political parties will need to study. My right hon. Friend has already conferred with the political parties on some of the problems which will be involved, and they will be looking at the different aspects of financing election campaigns in other Community countries.

The Minister of State will be aware that an approach has recently been made to the European Community by COMECON for a comprehensive trade agreement. Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity of considering with his Community colleagues, and subsequently with our American and other allies, what changes we require from the Russians in their political and military practices and activities, particularly overseas, in return for the high technology and grain which Russia requires from the West?

My right hon. Friend will be considering that question. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to make a statement without a Question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the official printed version of the Tindemans Report to be available; and by what means and at what price it will be on sale to the general public.

Copies are expected to be available free of charge from the Belgian Embassy later this week and from the Community offices towards the end of the month. Copies will also be available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office towards the end of the month at a charge of 60p.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as this report dealt with further steps towards European union and as the Government did not put the objective of European union in their letter-box leaflet during the referendum, it is important that the British public should have the report universally available? Why is a report to the Council of Ministers of the EEC being issued by the Belgian Embassy?

It was presented by Mr. Tindemans himself. Therefore, it was reasonable that his own country should publish the report. Copies were rapidly made available in this country to Parliament and the Press——

No. Three days later.

—and copies will shortly be made available to the public as a whole.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear to Mr. Tindemans and apparently to some of my colleagues that—speaking for England—most English people want a Europe of nation States, not a federal system?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government will not only speak for England but will take into consideration the interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Conservative Party is not able to do that, but we are. Dr. Tindemans revealed that he was a federalist. However, his report contained no proposals for a constitutional change of that kind. I am not expecting to see a federal system in this country in my political life.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Britain have a right to know that in this report there is a suggestion of a two-tier economic system with a commitment to defence and the manufacture of arms, which are matters of tremendous importance to them? Further, it is not true that the report was easily available either to Members of Parliament or to the general public.

It was rapidly made available. I believe that it was available within a couple of days. If hon. Members did not get it, that is unfortunate. The issues contained in the report should be widely debated. They will be debated in this House. The public should know what the issues are.

Do the Minister's last words constitute a pledge that we shall have a proper debate in this House on the Tindemans Report before the Prime Minister goes to Luxembourg to discuss it?

A debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I cannot give a pledge that there will be an early debate, but I have no doubt that there will be a debate in this House at the right time.

Will my right hon. Friend help the House by saying that, if a Member, on his own or his constituents' behalf, asks the Foreign Office to supply him with a copy of the Tindemans Report, my right hon. Friend will at least consider such a request?

Yes, of course.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to federalism. Has he read the covering letter of the Tindemans Report in which Mr. Tindemans says that in his opinion the Common Market will fulfil its destiny only if it espouses federalism? As for party consultations, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is not unanimity within the Conservative Party and that a growing number of people are opposed to direct elections? Therefore, will he meet those of us in the Conservative Party who are opposed to direct elections?

My right hon. Friend has heard what the hon. Gentleman has said about direct elections.

Should not my right hon. Friend take serious cognisance of what has been said this afternoon about direct elections and the Tindemans Report? Should he not make it clear to his colleagues in the EEC that there is great perturbation in the House about all these proposals? Will he not also agree that those proposals should be the subject of a full-scale debate?

I can only say that my right hon. Friend has witnessed the scenes in the House this afternoon.

Will the Minister accept that my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) speaks only for himself? Will he not also accept that one of the important issues in the Tindemans Report is that of further and closer political co-operation? Will he agree that the suggestion to set up a secretariat to improve political co-operation among the nine member States is essential and will lead to further and deeper talks on matters of defence?

At this stage I shall not comment on the individual proposals contained in that valuable report.