asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will pay an official visit to Umtata when the Transkei becomes an independent State later in 1976.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans.

Will the Minister confirm that when the Transkei becomes independent, the criteria for its recognition by the British Government will be the same as were applied in the case of Angola and all other States, namely, the likely permanence of the Government, its control over its territory, and the obedience of its citizens to that Government?

Yes, the same criteria will apply. Certainly Her Majesty's Government will have to be satisfied about the total independence of any territory and its ability to conduct its foreign and defence policy. As I have said before, it is unlikely in present circumstances, as far as we can see, that the Transkei will fulfil our criteria, but the criteria are the same.

Does the Minister of State not agree that the Transkei and the other proposed homelands fulfil none of the criteria for independence laid down by the United Nations, and that Paramount Chief Matanzima has no more right to regard himself, or to be regarded, as Head of Government than does the Chairman of the West Midlands County Council? Does the Minister of State agree that we should discourage investment in these so-called homelands, and that the Bantustan policy is nothing more than a further device to perpetuate the inferior status of the black majority in South Africa?

When I met some of the leaders of the homelands on their recent visit to Britain I made it clear that in our view the Bantustans were simply a part of the policy of apartheid to which we, and I think most hon. Members in this House, are totally opposed. Whether they will fulfil any of the criteria when they make an application for independence we shall have to wait and see, but they know our strong criticism of apartheid.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has had within the United Nations in regard to Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

The Security Council has not recently discussed Cyprus, but Dr. Waldheim presided at the February Vienna talks, during which agreement was reached on further exchanges and meetings. I am giving active support to Dr. Waldheim's successful efforts to sustain the talks by maintaining regular contacts with the parties.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, arising from those Vienna talks, it was agreed between the inter-communal leaders that written proposals would be made before 1st April this year? Is it not also a fact that, prior to these written proposals being made, because of the military occupation of the island by Turkey any proposals being made by Mr. Denktash must have the authority of the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr. Demirel? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend, together with Sir Christopher Soames, seek the support of the Turkish Prime Minister in doing everything possible to make the proposals realistic?

My hon. Friend is right when he says that agreement was reached in Vienna to exchange written proposals within six weeks and to meet again in May. Both through the EEC and bilaterally, I have been impressing upon the Turkish Government and the Greek Government that they should help, if they can, with Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, to maintain the momentum of the inter-communal talks and, both bilaterally and in consultation with our allies, try to reach a political settlement.

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that there is a good deal of worry in this country about upwards of 2,000 Greek Cypriots who still seem to be missing after the war of the year before last? If there is no progress on this matter in direct discussions between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders, is it not something that either the United Nations or the International Red Cross, with our encouragement, could offer to inquire into impartially?

I am not up to date on the latest position on this matter in regard to the Red Cross, but I shall be very willing to look into it. I regret to say that the last time I made inquiries there seemed to be little prospect of finding these missing people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his efforts to obtain the release of Mr. and Mrs. Richard Whitecross from detention in Argentina.

Despite our repeated and strong representations, the Argentine Government have not yet indicated their intentions. If not released, expelled or charged by 11th March, Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross will be entitled to seek writs of habeas corpus.

Does the Minister not agree that this really is becoming a matter of great concern, in view of the long delay and the deadline to which he has referred? Does he not further agree that it is intolerable for people to be detained without charge in this way for more than three months? Will he tell the House what further steps he and his officials will take if nothing happens there next week?

I have made very clear to the chargé d'affaires in London, as well as in Buenos Aires, the strength of feeling in the House and in the country about this case, and I shall certainly consider what further action is necessary. In view of the fact that 11th March is the key date, it might be advantageous to wait until then to see what happens.

Is it not the case that under Argentine law, after the lapse of 60 days in custody, in certain circumstances, people in the situation of Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross can require to leave the country? Can my hon. Friend tell us what has been done along those lines, especially in view of the fact that I understand that Mrs. Whitecross and Mr. Whitecross, senior—Mr. Whitecross's father—are seriously ill?

I certainly made the latter point clear when I spoke to the chargé d'affaires recently. As I said in my reply, if Mr. and Mrs. Whitecross are not released or expelled by 11th March they will be entitled to seek writs of habeas corpus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about Lord Greenhill's discussions in Rhodesia.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Lord Greenhill's visit to Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is proposed following the discussions between Lord Greenhill and the illegal régime in Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

Shortly after Lord Greenhill's return to this country a meeting was held between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo. I have received some account of what took place, and I am informed that another meeting has been arranged. Her Majesty's Government welcome these talks but are not involved in them.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I hope that the gravity of it will be appreciated in Salisbury. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, according to the Rhodesia Herald today, Mr. Smith has once again seen fit to deny that he has made fresh proposals of any kind to Mr. Nkomo? Therefore, there seems to be no point in trying to match every twist and turn of the Smith régime. Should not the Government, rather than sending out further emissaries, simply hold themselves ready to guarantee and, if necessary, police any peaceful transfer of power under majority rule conditions at such time as that can be achieved?

I must agree, with regret, with what my hon. Friend said about the twists and turns of the Rhodesian régime's position. I regret to say that I have not been informed of what appeared in the Rhodesia Herald today. However, our best course is to stand by the policy that we have advocated. It is well known in Africa, and is generally accepted by the Foreign Ministers—and their leaders—with whom I have had opportunities of discussion recently. That is the best way in which we should pursue our interests and those of the Rhodesian people.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that Conservative Members urge him to do all he possibly can in every way to bring about a settlement between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo? Secondly, is he aware that so long as the Mozambique Government are conniving at, if not fermenting, terrorism and bloodshed across the frontier with Rhodesia, we should regard any aid to that country as an outrage?

I shall continue to do what I can to promote a settlement on the basis of well-known British policy. I reject entirely what the right hon. Gentleman said about aid to Mozambique. The United Nations has called for assistance to that country and every Commonwealth country is joining in. If the Conservative Opposition want to stand out against that, let them say so.

The Foreign Secretary has said that he rejects all that I said. Does he reject my statement that the Mozambique Government are conniving at or fermenting this terrorism?

The major part of the right hon. Gentleman's question was directed to aid to Mozambique. The right hon. Gentleman made that conditional upon certain events taking place. I have already said in my main answer that it is the desire of the four Presidents that there should be a peaceful settlement. If the guerrillas, who are now training on the various borders around Rhodesia, are expelled from one country, they will go to another. It is about time the right hon. Gentleman faced the inevitability of this, turned his metaphorical guns on Mr. Smith and told him to come to terms. That is the way to save the Rhodesian Europeans.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker——

Order. Points of order will be taken after Question Time.

I formally welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that we are totally on the side of democracy in Southern Rhodesia. Is he considering the possibility of visiting President Nyerere in the near future, in order to stress the importance of contact with the four Presidents? What consideration is being given to the plight of Zambia, which has probably suffered more than any other nation in respect of UDI and sanctions? Are any discussions likely to take place on what can be done about Zambia?

It is of vital importance for the future of this country that as far as possible we should co-ordinate our policies with the four Presidents. I hope that the Conservative Party believes that that is right. Co-ordinating our policy means giving aid where aid is required. That is in our total interest. If I thought it was necessary, in furtherance of that co-ordination, to visit President Nyerere, I should be happy to do so. I believe that a later Question has been tabled on Zambia. However, yesterday I had the good fortune to have a discussion with the Foreign Minister of Zambia on this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the recent Daily Record report that the rebel Rhodesian régime is in the process of trying to recruit Scots mercenaries, with the aid of information about ex-Service men's records and private addresses? Does my right hon. Friend realise that that is causing grave public concern, particularly in view of the racialist reference on the application form and because of the possibility of collaboration between the Rhodesian and South African authorities?

I have seen some reports to that effect. If there are people in this country who are recruiting mercenaries, I understand that they render themselves liable to prosecution under the sanctions legislation. I hope that they will take due note of that. The position is very different from that which has obtained in Angola.

In view of some rather wild utterances about a possible British military involvement in Rhodesia. will the Foreign Secretary confirm that in his view the only circumstances in which that could be right would be if there were, first, a return to legality and an end to the state of rebellion and, secondly, if the purpose of a British military presence was to secure conditions in which a swift and orderly transfer of rule to the majority could take place?

I do not know the authority for any of those suggestions, but there is certainly no intention on our part to launch such a campaign. The hon. Gentleman has stated conditions under which we would need to look seriously at that proposition.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that his stand will have the full support of Labour Members? Does he further realise that the illegal régime in Rhodesia has been condemned not only by the Organisation of African Unity but by the whole Commonwealth and the United Nations? If there is a blood bath in Rhodesia, does he realise that the responsibility will be partly shared by those in this country who have lent their support to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?

I regret what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), an Opposition spokesman on this matter, said this afternoon. I believe that his remarks will give great encouragement to the Smith régime in its persistent defiance of the United Nations and the Commonwealth as a whole. What is more, the right hon. Gentleman's statements will do long-term damage to the position of the Europeans in Rhodesia.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will take into consideration the fact that the whole world wishes to avoid violence as much as possible at this stage. To pay £10 million of British taxpayers' money to a régime which encourages violence is like giving money to the IRA. If money has to be given to Mozambique, will the right hon. Gentleman consider paying some money to get the 50,000 people, black, white and coloured, who wish to seek asylum in Portugal back to that country rather than have them suffer under the tyranny of President Machel?

The right hon. Gentleman is doing the peaceful settlement in Rhodesia no good by this display of latter-day Blimpism. It is about time some Opposition Members faced up to the responsibility of this situation. What is required for a peaceful transition to African majority rule is a simple statement by Mr. Smith to the effect that all this can eventuate. [Interruption.] If any hon. Member thinks that I am destroying it, I must say that he has a very twisted sense of history.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the United States Secretary of State.

On present plans, at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Oslo in May.

When the Foreign Secretary meets Dr. Kissinger, will he take the initiative to convene a meeting of the leaders of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany to achieve greater mutual support in areas of the world threatened by Communism?

There are constant interchanges between the various members of the North Atlantic Council on these matters, and they will continue.

What representation has the United States Secretary of State made about the need for Britain to wind up its dispute with Iceland, which is a partner in the Alliance?

I am not aware of any representations that have been made on this matter, either formally or informally. I think it is generally understood by our allies that Britain has played a moderating rôle in this matter, and that the policy that we have followed in relation to conservation, our willingness to limit the number of trawlers fishing, our willingness to limit the amount of fish caught, and our willingness to have observers posted on our frigates, has been totally rejected by Iceland. I believe that the posture that we have adopted deserves the support of every hon. Member.

Is it not important that the West should make it clear that it has the will to defend its own interests? When the Foreign Secretary meets Dr. Kissinger, will he impress upon him the view that the West should be united to use all the means at its disposal to prevent a repetition of Soviet or Cuban adventures such as we have seen in Angola?

I have no doubt at all that the North Atlantic Alliance is a bulwark for peace and that it is essential, in view of the changes in military postures, that the Soviet Union and anyone else should note that it is our intention to defend ourselves against a direct attack. What seems to be much more likely nowadays is a more indirect form of attack, which perhaps needs a more sophisticated response, and it is to that that I am addressing my attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the annual costs, including salaries, rents and indirect costs, of maintaining Her Majesty's missions in Washington, Paris, Tokyo, Lusaka, Maseru and San Salvador.

As the reply is detailed I shall, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report. The annual costs of diplomatic and seconded staff range from £2·66 million for Washington to £70,000 for San Salvador. The costs of other United Kingdom-based staff are borne on the Votes of their parent Departments.

Does that reply not show that it is possible to maintain a small post in a small developing country for a tiny fraction of the cost of a large embassy in a large country? Is it not important that in the review that the CPRS is at present undertaking it should bear in mind the enormous value to Britain of having at least some presence, even if it is only two or three people, in a small country, compared with having to be represented from an embassy in a neighbouring country?

I am sure that in its review the CPRS will take very seriously my hon. Friend's point, with which I have a great deal of sympathy. In so far as there happen to be further cuts in manpower in the Diplomatic Service, I think that we would all wish to avoid further closures of missions. I cannot say what will be the outcome of the review, although I am certain that the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend will be taken very seriously.

Surely, if the Common Market succeeds in Mr. Tindemans' aim in becoming a federal State, we shall need only one embassy to represent all nine member countries. That is the logic of this matter. We could cut down Foreign Office staff by at least three-quarters.

The CPRS review is not necessarily a review for all time, and I should have thought that the hypothetical situation described by the hon. Gentleman was a very long way off.

The Minister has expressed sympathy with the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Luard), but does he not recall that Her Majesty's Government have already closed the Madagascar Embassy, which cost a relatively small sum? Will he now say whether the review will include the possibility of reinstating that and similar missions in

It would not be right for me to close the door on any opportunity that the CPRS has of looking at our overseas representation. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that, although the embassy in Tananarive has been closed, it has been found possible to retain not only an honorary consul but a permanent member of the embassy staff, who will be able to give active help with our business contacts.

Is the Minister aware that in 1914, at the time of this country's greatness, we had only six ambassadors and only small staffs? While casting no reflection on present staffs, may I ask why we need so many?

I do not recall that period but I am aware of the situation that existed then. There are rather more independent countries now than there were then. It was a little easier to govern from Whitehall than it is now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Zambia and Zaire.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to do so.

If the right hon. Gentleman wished to do something really useful and, moreover, had a bit of taxpayers' money to splash around, would it not be far better for him to visit these two countries to see how he can help them in their great economic distress rather than pour taxpayers' money down the drain in assisting the terrorists in Mozambique?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have had the opportunity very recently of discussions with the Zambian Foreign Minister and the Foreign Minister from Zaire, who also met the Prime Minister on his visit. We are very conscious of the economic problems that face both of those countries. We have decided to give additional aid both to Zambia and Zaire, and we are ready to provide assistance also for reconstruction in Angola, which has suffered very much. We are now in discussion with our Community partners on this question.

In the Minister's discussions with leaders of those countries, did he make it clear that the future of the white minority in Rhodesia is essential to a negotiated settlement? Will he also consider tying future financial aid and technical assistance to the maintenance of the constitutional rights of the white minority in any future Government of an independent State of Zimbabwe?

I think that it would be accepted not only by the leaders of the two countries concerned but certainly by the leaders of the ANC in Rhodesia that a proper future for Rhodesia would include a vital place for the white members of the community as well as for the Africans. Mr. Nkomo has made this clear, as have other representatives of the ANC. Certainly if an agreement can be reached for an orderly transfer to majority rule in a brief period, I am certain that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to look seriously at ways in which we can help to see that it becomes a multiracial community.

In view of the reports concerning the relationship of the guerrilla leaders with Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa, if the Minister goes to Zambia will he take steps to establish relations between British representatives in Zambia and those guerrilla leaders?

That is not a very easy task to perform at present. We have maintained an effective relationship with the different strands of the ANC representing the interests of the people of Rhodesia. We are obviously not in touch with the guerrillas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress being made by all signatories on the implementing of the Helsinki Agreement.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply on this point given by my right hon. Friend on 22nd January. We shall not be satisfied until all the points in the Final Act are being met by all signatories. Some progress is being made to adjust existing practices to the provisions of the Final Act. But any proper assessment must wait until the 1977 review meeting.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that many who supported and continue to support the Helsinki Agreement consider that recent and on-going action by the Soviet Union regarding Southern Africa, persecution within its own border, and the massive growth of the Soviet Navy are in flagrant breach of the Helsinki Agreement? Will he make it clear to the Soviet Union, before Belgrade next year, that other signatories are not prepared to tolerate these continued breaches and will, if necessary, be prepared to withdraw trade and technological agreements if the Soviet Union does not mend its ways?

I think that it is far too early to take any action on the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. In connection with Soviet and Cuban involvement in Angola, my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have made their views very clear. The House knows them and so does the Soviet Government. However, the purpose of Helsinki was to achieve agreement on a wide front. There are a number of ways in which the Final Act is being implemented. For the convenience of the House I should like to circulate a note detailing actions which cover notification of manoeuvres, relaxation of immigration rules, the easing of restrictions on journalists and the admission of Western newspapers. We are not yet satisfied. These are early days, and we shall be watching their performance, as others will be watching our performance.

Will my right hon. Friend take it from me that one of the most inexplicable occurrences is that ordinary citizens who wish to leave some of the Eastern European countries to marry citizens of this country are unable to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism."] That has nothing to do with Socialism. It is Stalinist bureaucracy. Will my right hon. Friend explain to the authorities in Eastern Europe that this is inexplicable to Democratic Socialists and that we believe the time has come for them to change fundamentally their attitude, or otherwise it will be impossible for us to believe some of their other statements?

I am certain that many hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the point made by my hon. Friend. In cases where the individual concerned has an immediate relative who is British, it is our practice to raise the matter formally with the Soviet authorities even if the individual is himself a Soviet citizen. We have done this for a number of years. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State had a discussion on this subject with the Soviet Ambassador as recently as 16th February. We shall continue to make representations on this basis to the Soviet authorities. We think it important that family reunification should take place, and take the view that anyone who stands in the way of that is in breach of at least the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement.

I understand that Mr. Gromyko is about to pay a visit to this country in the near future, at the invitation of the Secretary of State. Will this occasion be taken to explain clearly and fully to Mr. Gromyko the doubts felt on both sides of the House about the Russian performance in fulfilment of the Helsinki Agreement?

It is not for me to anounce the agenda but, of course, the follow-up and the events which follow Helsinki will be discussed by my right hon. Friend when Mr. Gromyko is here. Equally, the situation in Africa, on which my right hon. Friend has expressed so much concern, will, of course, be an issue for discussion with Mr. Gromyko.

In view of the Soviet authorities' failure to comply with the terms of the Helsinki Agreement, which my right hon. Friend himself so eloquently denounced in a recent foreign affairs debate, will he give the House an assurance that the matter will be raised with Mr. Gromyko when he is here?

I cannot list the items that will be raised by my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend is present. He will be conducting the discussions. The concern that my hon. and learned Friend expressed in the debate 10 days ago, and which I have reiterated, will certainly be uppermost in the mind of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the passports confiscated from British citizens returning from Angola have not yet been returned.

Thirty-eight up to today.

Will the Minister confirm that those which have been returned to former mercenaries have been returned on the basis of an undertaking that they will not in future go to Angola for those purposes? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that action of that kind sets a precedent which might be used by future Governments in order to silence critics or prevent other kinds of conduct which was disapproved of on grounds that it might be controversial?

I think that there are very limited categories in which this action can be taken. The list of categories of persons from whom passports may be withdrawn was given to the House on 15th November 1974 and included those

"whose past or proposed activities are so demonstrably undesirable that the grant or continued enjoyment of passport facilities would be contrary to the public interest."—[Official Report, 15th November 1974; Vol. 881 c. 265.]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that many hon. Members in all parts of the House are very disturbed about this practice and feel that while the comparison is far from being an exact one it ill behoves us, who criticised the Berlin Wall, to impose any restrictions upon the exit of citizens of this country from this country? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the impounding of a passport does not prevent a citizen of this country from leaving, nor, indeed, take away his right to come back so long as he has some proof that he is a settled citizen of this country?

I am naturally interested to hear the concerns of my hon. Friends. I think it right that whenever action is taken like this it should be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer, because the most recent occasion when this action was taken was when the Conservative Party was in power. This is an action for which there is a precedent set by a previous Conservative Government. Therefore, I shall not take criticism on this issue from the Conservative Party. It is perfectly right for my hon. Friend to express his concern. The fact that this was done for a brief period for a situation that caused great alarm in the House—a situation that has now changed—and the fact that passports can be returned will be a reassurance to my hon. Friend.

Is it not true that the circumstances of the precedent to which the Minister has just referred were quite different, because it had a United Nations resolution behind it? The Minister said that people would not be allowed out if their activities were "demonstrably undesirable". To whom are they "demonstrably undesirable"?

It was demonstrably undesirable—[HON. MEMBERS: "To whom?"] I cannot imagine that hon. Members on either side of the House would say that it was desirable that British citizens should go to Angola as mercenaries and become involved in massacres of other British citizens as well as in the destruction of the lives of the Angolan people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why Her Majesty's Government have not in recent weeks raised in the Security Council of the United Nations the intervention of a substantial Soviet/ Cuban military force in the internal affairs of an independent African nation without the invitation of any lawfully constituted or internationally recognised Government.

Until African countries themselves wish the United Nations to become involved, there will be no majority for any action which might help towards a solution. We have consistently made clear our own strong opposition to all external intervention in the internal affairs of African countries.

The Minister is begging the question why Her Majesty's Government, having had foreknowledge by at least two months of recognition of the MPLA as the Government of Angola, that this Soviet/Cuban enterprise was being built up in the Western Hemisphere and that arrangements were being made for this massive transfer of military power from one continent to another, did not choose that opportunity to raise at the United Nations this grave threat to the peace.

I find it extremely interesting that the hon. Gentleman, so recently after his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has been condemning the actions of the Mozambique Government in complying with United Nations sanctions, should now be leaping up and calling for the matter to go before the United Nations. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I shall answer in my own way. Of course Her Majesty's Government considered whether it would assist the situation in Angola to raise the matter with the Security Council. It was the assessment of ourselves, our colleagues in the European Community and indeed of the United States of America that no purpose would have been served at that time unless the African States which were themselves principally involved had thought that that was a way to bring about a peaceful settlement.

Is it not clear that if flagrant acts of aggression by a racist regime like South Africa take place, and if there is no reaction from the Western world, other countries will inevitably step in to fill the gap?

That is another question, but it is doubtless true that if the matter had been raised in the Security Council the involvement of South Africa in Angola would have been as prominent in the debate as was the presence of Cuban troops. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) is suggesting that that is the issue we should have taken before the Security Council, but I suggest, and very few would disagree, that that would not have been a means of influencing an effective and peaceful settlement in that dispute.

The Minister of State has totally misrepresented me in saying that I was condemning the Mozambique Government for carrying out a resolution of the United Nations. I was condemning it for conniving at and fomenting bloodshed and terrorism.

What I also thought the right hon. Gentleman was doing was dissociating himself from a decision taken by every representative of the Commonwealth at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, not only that there should be an extension of sanctions on Rhodesia in accordance with the United Nations resolution but that we should give assistance to Mozambique as a new State. That is what I thought he was criticising.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many seats Wales is likely to have in the European Assembly after direct elections; and how this compares with the number of seats that will be held by Denmark and Ireland.

The size of the directly-elected Assembly and the allocation of seats between member States will be the subject of negotiations still to take place. The distribution of the seats within the United Kingdom will be a matter for national decision at a later date.

Many people will see that answer as a continued evasion of facing up to this matter. Does the Foreign Secretary realise that under the recently announced provisions of the Green Paper Wales will be lucky to get three or four seats in such a Parliament, whereas, as a country in its own right, it could expect 12? The people of Wales will see themselves as being grossly unrepresented in the EEC Parliament unless they obtain representation as a nation in their own right.

It is our view that the relationship between the number of seats in the Assembly and the size of a country should be more proportional than it is at present, but the hon. Member is drawing an entirely false conclusion. Along with the members of the Scottish National Party he should reflect on the fact that the reason why the smaller countries are demanding more seats, out of proportion to their population, is that they feel their interests will otherwise be overlooked. The interests of those who are members of a large group like the United Kingdom, France or Germany will be best safeguarded. The whole argument that is going on now between the very smallest countries and the rest is precisely on this basis. The people of Wales—and, I hope, the people of Scotland, but I certainly speak for the people of Wales—simply have no desire for separate representation in this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue of separatism has been put repeatedly to the people of Wales and that they have repeatedly rejected it? Will he point out to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) that Southern Ireland may be represented in the EEC but it is not represented in this House, and that the people of Wales would not be represented here unless the unity of these islands was maintained?

What we must keep rubbing the noses of the Nationalists in is the fact that the constituent parts of the larger States are much better represented precisely because they are larger than are the smaller groups who are now struggling for extra seats——

That is absolute rubbish.

and when this sinks in in Wales and Scotland we shall hear less from the nationalist Bench about this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further submissions he has received on the subject of direct elections to the European Parliament.

I have been in touch with all the parliamentary parties. I have received written views from some and had consultations with those that asked for them.

When the Foreign Secretary receives representations, as he will, from some groups suggesting that the power and authority of this House will in some way be undermined by our acceptance of a system of direct elections, will he challenge them to name one power at present exercised by this House which will be either removed or diluted by our transition from a system of nomination to a system of direct elections?

As is set out in paragraph 12 of the Green Paper, the elections will take place on the basis of such powers as the European Parliament now has. Whether there will be any later transfers of powers depends upon unanimous agreement by all the nine member States, and therefore this House, like Parliaments elsewhere in Europe, will have the opportunity of saying "Yea" or "Nay".

Are we not in great danger of carrying out this whole exercise the wrong way round? It seems that the House is now discussing devolved powers with the United Kingdom without coming to agreement about the authority to be created within the new Assembly or Parliament in Europe. Therefore, ought we not to be discussing Europe and its powers before we discuss the kind of governmental structures that would be necessary for a devolved system in this country?

There is some force in what my hon. Friend says, but the plain truth is that there is no agreement in Europe about which way this should go. Over the forthcoming period this House has the opportunity of giving a lead in trying to indicate to European opinion the way in which it should go. Mr. Tindemans has made a report on it, but we have seen from the reaction that it does not command unanimous agreement. In spite of that, it is the view of the nine members that they wish to go ahead with direct elections on the basis of the existing powers without regard to the future or to changes which might conceivably take place.

In view of what the Foreign Secretary said to the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) about direct elections, does he not think it is shocking to regard Scotland and Wales as regions? They are nations, and they deserve nation status in this context.

I do not know that I said anything different from that.

Will my right hon. Friend consider how much it will cost to finance this further level of administration, and whether that comes under the heading of those items of public expenditure that must be levelled off or phased out after 1977 in view of the need to strengthen our manufacturing base at home? Or are there different rules for the Common Market?

No. As my hon. Friend will remember, these elections are due to start in 1978.

On the assumption that the Foreign Secretary has considered the implications of direct elections to the European Parliament, will he do the House the favour of giving his most considered view of where this will all lead, particularly in the light of remarks by Mr. Ortoli and Mr. Tindemans that it will succeed only if there is a federal State?

If I thought I had the slightest influence on the hon. Gentleman I should be glad to do so, but this is a matter that will be the subject of debate on 1st and 2nd April at the European Council.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that both he and the Prime Minister will continue to press on the European Assembly the need to establish a Public Accounts Committee? Unless and until the European Parliament gets that additional power, the response of the British people is likely to be lukewarm to these matters.

I think that my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, because of his experience as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who raised this matter. It was my right hon. Friend who put forward the detailed proposals. I hope that we shall see them accepted shortly so that there can be proper control by the European Assembly over expenditure, and the investigation of expenditure.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that one of several gaps in the Green Paper is the failure to discuss the links that will be needed between the European Parliament and this House? Will he give an undertaking that when we debate this vitally important matter we shall have a clear indication from the Government of their views?

I agree that it is important, but I cannot give that indication. I have already said in public speeches that this matter will need to be considered and that we shall welcome opinions in due course. However, this is a few years away yet.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consideration the Government have given to the constitutional implications for the United Kingdom of direct elections to the EEC Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he took into account in producing the Green Paper the constitutional implications of direct elections to the European Assembly.

The Government are conscious of the importance of this question, but the introduction of direct elections on the basis of the Assembly's existing powers will not affect the present role of national Governments and Parliaments in the European Community, nor will it change the balance of the Community institutions.

Knowing the great influence that I have over my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether, as for some reason the Government made no mention of direct elections in their referendum manifesto that was delivered to all voters, he would agree that the proposals have far-reaching constitutional implications that have not yet been fully considered by the House or the country? Should we not at least consider them properly before rushing into irrevocable decisions?

I think that my right hon. Friend is right. He has considerable influence, but I am bound to say that it is greater in economic matters than in the European sphere. I have always sat at his feet on economic matters. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend is a very good economist. He was one of the first to concentrate on the need for the dispersal of industries to the regions. He has never had full credit for that.

Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to press for a decision on direct elections at a meeting of the European Council next month?

We shall play our part at that meeting. I am not sure whether there will be an agreement, as there are substantial differences on this issue. There is the relationship between small countries that feel that their interests are not adequately safeguarded because they are small and want more seats and the larger nations that want greater proportionality. I am not sure whether an agreement will be reached, but we shall do our best to see that the matter marches on and that the position of the United Kingdom as a whole is safeguarded. As one integrated unit throughout the United Kingdom we can best look after the interests of all our people.

Will the House, or a Committee of the House, have an opportunity of going beyond the Green Paper which is concerned only with the practical problems? Will there be an opportunity to consider questions of principle, which have implications almost as far-reaching as those on devolution? Should not the House have that opportunity before any commitment is entered into in Brussels?

No, I cannot give that undertaking. Treaty-making powers are the responsibility of the Government. It will then be for the House to consider whether the Treaty should be ratified. As I think I explained to my hon. Friend in another context, I want to see full publication and full discussion. As I think he knows, we could reject it, but it would be impossible to amend such an Order when laid.

Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that in practice it is possible to limit the powers which a directly-elected representative Assembly can claim?

What I believe is neither here nor there. I am here to answer questions on fact.

Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that not all of us played the referendum campaign on quite as low a key as he did? Some of us raised the question of direct elections to the European Parliament. Those who set their face against direct elections are now arguing for the continuation of a relatively powerless, impotent and part-time appointed Chamber against the weight of the European bureaucracy.

As regards my low-key playing of the referendum campaign, I had the largest meeting that was held in Edinburgh, when the Usher Hall was filled, when there was a full description of my views. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not there to hear me.