asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with Mr. Gromyko.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Written Answer to the Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) on 25th March.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Soviet leaders have expressed the view that in spite of detente the war of ideas should continue in the Communist and democratic worlds, and I believe that the Foreign Secretary himself has supported this thesis. Did Mr. Gromyko have any suggestions about how the war of ideas should be conducted inside the Soviet Union, apart from importing 40 copies of the Financial Times?

We were engaged in improving relationships with the Soviet Union in trade and other matters, and I do not believe that a discussion of that sort would have helped that end any more than I would have welcomed a discussion on similar matters in this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with Mr. Gromyko regarding the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement.

I had a useful discussion on this subject with Mr. Gromyko. I made it clear to him that in our view all those countries which were party to the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe should aim to make progress in advance of the 1977 review meeting towards making their deeds match their words. Mr. Gromyko affirmed to me the Soviet Union's commitment to implementation of the Final Act.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether Mr. Gromyko made clear how he reconciled the Soviet signing of the Helsinki Agreement with the Soviets' flagrant breaches of the spirit of Helsinki, the continuing persecution of their own citizens within their own borders, the massive and continued growth of the Red Navy and the supplying of arms and military advisers to Southern Africa?

The hon. Gentleman was one of those who was keenest on our signing this pact. I well remember the constructive speeches that he used to make only four months ago. I do not know why he imagines that the world will be reformed overnight. Frankly, it will not help if it is thought that one party in the House is constantly nagging on this matter. Nagging is not the best way of making progress. At the moment all we are getting from the Conservative Party is that sort of approach towards the Soviet Union. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks his party's spokesman what he made of the discussions that he had with Mr. Gromyko when he met him.

I cannot say that I voted for my right hon. Friend, but I very much support the view that he has just expressed. Did the two Foreign Secretaries discuss the offer that was made by Mr. Brezhnev last March for ending the East-West deadlock by the mutual reduction of forces and by a reduction of tanks, aircraft and nuclear weapons? If there is some suspicion about the offer, why not put it to the test?

I remind my hon. Friend of the parable of the Prodigal Son, although I cannot promise him a fatted calf.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the discussions that I and my right hon. Friends had with Mr. Gromyko we stressed the acute concern in this country about the growth of Soviet armed forces, especially naval forces, and our concern about the Cuban incursion into Southern Africa with Soviet support? Is he aware that in particular we stressed the genuine nature of the concern in this country about the treatment of many individual Soviet citizens within the Soviet Union, especially Jewish citizens? Did the right hon. Gentleman do the same? If not, why not?

I shall not go into details about our discussions. It is not the customary practice to do so. If the Conservative Party was being a little more responsible, it would know that. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I made my views clear on these matters to Mr. Gromyko, and on many other matters as well. I am complaining about the attitude of the Conservative Party that leads to the querulous nagging that goes on week by week. I advise the Conservative Party that it will not get results in that way from the Soviet Union.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the fruits of détente is the increasing trade with the Soviet Union that the Prime Minister announced a week or so ago, trade that will be highly beneficial to the British economy besides helping to reduce our unemployment? Does my right hon. Friend agree that trade of that sort is a highly excellent means of improving relationships between the two countries?

Yes. Mr. Gromyko made it clear that the Russions hope in the near future to use all the credits that have been made available to them. That will help to provide substantial employment in Britain. However, I do not think that such credits or such trade can be restricted to the Soviet Union. The same rules should be applied to other countries with whose policies we do not fully agree.

May we assume that the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister made it clear to Mr. Gromyko that we expect the Soviet forces and their Cuban satellites to withdraw bag and baggage from Angola? What response was made by Mr. Gromyko, and in what time-scale can we expect that withdrawal?

I am not aware of Soviet troops being in Angola, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is either. We discussed the presence of Cuban troops, and we were both able to act as useful channels of communication between Angola and South Africa. That had the effect of considerably reducing tension. I found that Mr. Gromyko's approach to this matter was designed to reduce tension and to ensure that there was no way in which the situation in South Africa would get out of control.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the approach that the Conservative Opposition have adopted towards the Soviet Union is totally hysterical, is doing no good, and is not helping those forces in the Soviet Union which want to move the Soviet Union in a more democratic direction? Does he agree that there are forces in the Soviet Union which are not like Solzhenitsyn but like Roy Medvedef—namely, democratic Socialists who believe in the type of Socialism in which we in the Labour Party believe, people who are not given to the hysterical attitudes adopted by the Opposition or by Solzhenitsyn?

My hon. Friend is fully entitled to speak on this matter. He has spoken out on many other occasions. It is for the Conservative Party to decide its own attitude, and no doubt Conservatives will do so.

We do not like tyranny.

The Conservative Party is entitled to choose the way in which it conducts its relations with the Soviet Union, but I suggest that it says the same things in public as it says in private.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit Hong Kong.

My right hon. Friend announced on 29th October that he was planning a visit to the Far East, including Hong Kong.

When my right hon. Friend goes to Hong Kong will he ensure that gross exploitation in the colony is ended and that legislation such as the Employment Protection Act which applies in this country also applies there? Until then will be ensure that the products of exploitation, particularly textile products, are not allowed into this country to put out of work people here who are under the protection of that Act?

I cannot accept that there is gross exploitation in Hong Kong. There has been, as many hon. Members who have been to Hong Kong recently know, a great deal of progress. The Hong Kong Government have greatly increased the proportion of their expenditure this year—they are spending £100 million more than in the past year—on such things as social welfare, housing, health and education. Textiles are, of course, basically a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but I can tell my hon. Friend that as a result of the EEC-Hong Kong textiles agreement, in which we and other Community members are involved, a greater proportion of the increase in Hong Kong textiles is going to other parts of the Community, with, correspondingly less coming to Britain.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that British administrative ability and Chinese expertise in commercial affairs produce a highly successful combination? Would it not be a good idea to meddle as little as possible in the affairs of a very successful colony?

It is true that in comparison with most other countries in Asia the standards of living of the population of Hong Kong are very high. That is partly because of the people and partly because of the technical advice and aid they are able to get. As for interference, the British Government have a responsibility which is principally carried out through the Governor, in whom we have very great confidence.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement about recent events in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about the progress of negotiations between Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Ian Smith.

I would refer the hon. Members to the statement by my right hon. Friend on 22nd March about Rhodesia. As he said then, the talks between Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Smith have now been broken off.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that by next Monday there will be an entirely different situation? Will he ask the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) or, failing that, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) to meet Mr. Smith at the earliest possible opportunity to make another effort to bring this long-drawn-out, shabby quarrel to a conclusion?

I can assure the hon. Member that there will be a new situation next Monday, and, whatever occurs, I shall be delighted with the outcome.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that, whatever the outcome of events on Monday, at least we shall be pleased that the future Prime Minister will represent a Welsh constituency? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it has been the consistent and continuing policy of the Government that we should seek a peaceful solution, but that we should discuss continually with the presidents of the surrounding African States and ensure that we get majority rule as soon as possible?

The principles stated by my hon. Friend are absolutely right. I am leaving London today for Dar-es-Salaam for talks with President Nyerere, who is the Chairman of the four Presidents. I hope also to go to Maputo for talks with the Mozambique Government.

Could the Minister of State enlarge a little on the part of the Foreign Secretary's statement in which he hinted at possible aid to the European population, or those who might not wish to stay in a future developing Rhodesia? In view of President Nyerere's suggestions on the matter and the precedent in this country in the case of the Kenya settlers, will he tell us more about that?

I do not want to go into great detail. My right hon. Friend indicated in his statement and when answering questions that the Government's view was that it was in the long-term interests of Rhodesia and co-operation between the races that the European population should remain there as equals within that society and that part of the proposals which we would put forward, if circumstances arose to negotiate rapid progress towards majority rule, would include certain aspects which would be of help to the European population. We have talked about the need for some kind of aid programme and for educational assistance. We have also talked about the interests of civil servants, for instance, and their need for security and assurances, which we have in mind. It would be wrong to go into full details, but these matters are being carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and myself.

In view of the grave danger of increasing violence in Rhodesia, will the Minister ask the Secretary of State to persuade the European Heads of State this week to come out with a clear message to all who are interested in a peaceful solution in Southern Africa and in Rhodesia—that is, the four African Presidents, South Africa and particularly the Rhodesians—that, if they reach an early settlement, Europe, led by Britain, will do its utmost to facilitate a peaceful transition to independence?

The agenda for the meeting to which my right hon. Friend will be going with the Prime Minister is for them. I should be surprised if these questions are not discussed. An important statement has already been made by the Community in terms of Southern Africa as a whole. It may be that the Heads of State will think it appropriate—if not this week, soon—to publish a statement on behalf of the Community specifically about Rhodesia.

What reply has been sent to the appeal by Dr. Kaunda for British troops to be committed to maintain law and order during the transitional stage in Rhodesia? Has the Foreign Secretary made it absolutely clear that British troops will not be committed at any stage?

A reply has not been sent to President Kaunda because that point was made in a statement. He has not addressed anything specifically to the Government. The Government's position is absolutely clear. We were not prepared to intervene militarily at the time of UDI in 1965. We would no more be prepared to intervene militarily today either to take action to support the minority against the majority or, as President Kaunda suggested, to arrest those who are now holding power. We believe that it must be done by negotiation.

Despite the Minister's obvious intention to exercise a dual mandate in a current contest, will he convey to the current Foreign Secretary the Opposition's disappointment at Mr. Smith's complete rejection of his proposals and our profound hope that the right hon. Gentleman will press forward in every possible way, despite the disappointments and difficulties, to try to find a solution to this desperately important British problem?

I think that I indicated that, whatever my parliamentary colleagues may decide, they will produce a new Prime Minister of whom all of us can be proud.

rose—

Order. This matter is to come up again.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Will the hon. Gentleman raise his point of order at the end of Question Time?

It relates to this precise Question, Mr. Speaker.

To raise a point of order now is only taking up Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take account of proposals for guaranteeing the future in an independent Rhodesia for the minority of whites who would wish to remain there in his formulation of policy on Rhodesia.

I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement of 22nd March in which he made clear that we looked for a settlement in Rhodesia which provided the kind of background that would enable both communities to live and work together.

Is it not clear that, now Mr. Smith has rejected the terms that were set out in the statement made in the House by the Foreign Secretary a few weeks ago, it is essential that the white minority in Rhodesia be assured as to its future prospects in that country after independence? Will the right hon. Gentleman amplify his earlier answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and cause Mr. Nkomo's thoughts on adequate proposals for the future of the white minority in Rhodesia to be published in the Official Report?

It is really for Mr. Nkomo to publish the record of the negotiations. I shall be surprised if he does not do so. When he publishes them, the hon. Gentleman will see the moderate and balanced proposals that he put forward. I shall not elaborate on the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) for the reasons that I gave when answering him.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the white minority interests will best be protected if they begin to lean a little more heavily on Mr. Smith and make him realise that he is at the end of the road and that for their own future Mr. Smith must go at once?

There is much wisdom in what my right hon. Friend says. There is a responsibility on those Europeans in Rhodesia who recognise the folly of Mr. Smith's ways but who themselves wish to find a peaceful and just settlement in Rhodesia to speak up. Equally, it is the responsibility of hon. Members in all parts of the House, especially members of the Conservative Opposition who have closer contacts with Mr. Smith than do others in the House, to speak up loud and clear now.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Foreign Secretary—and it is a pity that the Foreign Secretary did not reply to this Question—whether he will invite Mr. Smith to a conference in London, bearing in mind the dreadful consequences of the adoption of President Kaunda's suggestions? Because we want to prevent war, will he also consider the possibility of a Select Committee of this House going to Rhodesia, as Mr. Smith made a virtual invitation to such a Committee last week?

No, I cannot accept that proposal. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said that the purposes of a conference, which would be broadly representative, would be to discuss an orderly transfer to majority rule and the circumstances in which Rhodesia should move to independence. The moment for such a conference will come when Mr. Smith and others have recognised the basic principle. To step in at this stage, when Mr. Smith has explicitly denounced that principle, would make no contribution at all towards finding a solution.

Since we do not want to be drawn into the toils of further discussions with Mr. Smith, whatever changes may take place in the Foreign Office, is it not clear that we should have a continuous policy whereby the white community in Rhodesia is encouraged to come to talks with the British Government—although under the leadership not of Mr. Smith but of more reasonable men?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to safeguard British interests in Southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

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

Over the past few months we have become increasingly concerned about the dangers of a widening resort to violence in Southern Africa. We have been actively and continuously involved in the search for peaceful solutions to many problems of the region. On the central problem of Rhodesia, I would refer to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 22nd March and the replies already given today.

Is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of anxiety in this country regarding not only trade and investment but the safety of British residents in Southern Africa? It is necessary that the Minister should make a statement to try to allay those anxieties. Does he agree that it is now time for a new British initiative which might bring together the various Heads of State in Southern Africa? Will he particularly bear in mind Sir Winston Churchill's phrase that jaw jaw is better than war war?

This is advice which I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the whole House would wish to give to Mr. Smith, because there is growing concern in this country and in others parts of the world about the consequences of increasing violence in Rhodesia. There is concern if it means the loss of European or African lives, and it is likely to mean both.

In the event of majority rule in Rhodesia, what guarantee can the Minister give for the protection of minority rights, whether those minorities be black, white or coloured?

These are matters for what we hope will be a new constitution.

This Question refers to Southern Africa. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as in Rhodesia, there are great problems, for instance, regarding the constitutional position of Namibia? Is he aware that many of us for more than a decade have urged the leaders of African national opinion to be patient and to negotiate? It now looks as though that patience is completely exhausted and that, as long as South Africa intends to maintain its grip on Namibia by force, there is no alternative left to the guerrilla movement of SWAPO.

I think that my hon. Friend knows that a greal deal of pressure is being exerted on the South African Government to recognise that time is not on their side in Namibia, as time has not been on the side of the European minority in Rhodesia. The Security Council passed a unanimous resolution, in which we played a part. The countries of the Nine have made their views known directly to the South African Government. The United States, France, and Britain have on two occasions made direct representations. Recently in this House -we have said that the South Africans ought to set themselves a target—perhaps one year—for the independence of that country. I believe that that would relieve much of the pressure which, if not relieved, will also lead to bloodshed.

If the Government feel unable to do anything further in the present circumstances, which seems possible, if the incursions across the Rhodesian border continue to mount, which also seems possible, and if this happens with the support, directly or indirectly, of the Soviet Union, which to my mind is certain, would the Minister care to make an assessment of the not unimportant implications for the British interests and the interests of the free world.

British interests, as defined in a variety of ways, are suffering and will inevitably suffer until there is a proper constitutional settlement in Rhodesia. As regards some of the "ifs" of the hon. Gentleman, it may very well be that unless some sense and some diplomacy are shown soon by leaders in Rhodesia, there will be an increase of the pressures and the incursions over the frontier. I think that they will be Zimbabweans who will be involved in a freedom struggle.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an estimate of the number and location of Cuban regular soldiers on the African continent, apart from those in Angola.

Cuban regular soldiers are employed mainly in advisory and training rôles in Guinea, Equatorial Guinea and Somalia. It is also possible that there are small detachments similarly employed in Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and the Western Sahara. We estimate they amount to about 500 men in all.

I thank the Minister for that reply. However, what further action will the Government take to obtain the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Southern Africa? Secondly, what consideration have the Government given to the possibility of international economic action against Cuba?

There is a debate now proceeding in the United Nations, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government's representative will state quite clearly that it is our view that all foreign forces ought to be withdrawn. Secondly, fears of further intervention elsewhere in Africa by Communist forces were stressed by my right hon. Friend in his meetings with Mr. Gromyko a few days ago. As for any further Cuban intervention in Africa, the Cubans are in Angola by the invitation of that Government and there is at present no sign of such intent to intervene elsewhere, but we have made it clear that if there were it would create a serious situation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the strength of feeling in my constituency about the fact that we should be giving money or aid to Mozambique which might be used by a country which gives succour to Cuban or other guerrillas? Will the Minister say how much has been given in recent months to Mozambique, how much it is proposed to give, and what restrictions, if any, the British Government are proposing to place upon grants of aid to Mozambique?

First, there are no Cuban guerrillas in Mozambique. British assistance to Mozambique is given as part of the guarantee that we made to the United Nations, which was agreed unanimously by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, when Mozambique fell into line—which we welcomed—with almost all other countries in imposing sanctions against the illegal régime.

What guarantee can the Minister give to the House that this British money will not be used, directly or indirectly, to sustain and encourage the guerrillas?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary are satisfied that our methods of administering aid funds are such that we can be satisfied that they are and will be used for the purposes for which they are given. This is a principle to which we adhere very strongly, and this is an assurance that I have received from the Foreign Minister of Mozambique, and I have no reason to doubt it.

Does my right hon. Friend recall the grossly exaggerated stories of a month ago and six weeks ago saying that the Cuban forces were in Angola for the precise purpose of rolling into South-West Africa and carrying on a war against South Africa itself? Have not events shown that the Angolans have made it perfectly clear and were correct in saying that the presence of Cuban troops was because Angola was invaded in the first instance by South Africa?

I do not want to get involved in arguments about which external intervention came first, whether it was from Cuba or South Africa. My right hon. Friend and I have condemned external intervention from both sides, including the very large presence of Cuban troops on Angolan terrirtory, so I cannot support my hon. Friend to that extent.

If Her Majesty's Government are saying "No independence before majority rule", as I understand they are saying, would it not be a logical corollary, upon the assumption that no African nationals can wish to exchange what they regard as one form of imperialism for another that is even worse, for Her Majesty's Government to say to all surrounding African countries "No independence before Cuban withdrawal"?

That is not something that we can lay down. We can argue, we can make representations and we can urge, but basically at this stage it is for the Angolan Government to decide whether there should be foreign troops on their territory, as it is the right of other countries to decide. However, our views will continue to be clearly known. I assure the hon. Gentleman that in the discussions that I shall be having in the next few days, the views of Her Majesty's Government will be very clearly presented.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress being made for direct elections to the European Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the attitude to be taken by Great Britain at the forthcoming EEC meeting on the subject of direct elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on direct elections to the European Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further examination of the constitutional consequences of direct elections to the EEC Assembly the Government propose to undertake before committing the United Kingdom to this innovation.

I have nothing to add to the speeches made by Ministers during the two-day debate on this subject which ended yesterday.

As the right hon. Gentleman has insisted that he feels under a Treaty obligation to make progress towards direct elections, should he not warn his right hon. Friends, particularly this week, that he feels under a similar Treaty obligation to make progress towards a common competitive policy founded on the principles of a market economy?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the subject of a common competitive policy in a statement two days ago. I have nothing to add to what he then said.

As the Government have wisely decided that a Select Committee should be set up to consider these matters, does my right hon. Friend agree that the setting up of that Committee and its terms of reference are matters to be decided by this House and not by the Government?

The fact is that the terms of reference must be submitted to this House, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the Government should give some guidance on those terms.

Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that the whole course of British history lies in giving powers first to Parliament and to come to universal suffrage later, as instanced in 1832, 1864 and 1884? What is the point in giving universal suffrage to Europe without political powers being available for that purpose?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House yesterday afternoon. If he was, he will recall that I explained that the powers granted to Europe could not be more precise, in that they are stipulated in the Treaty of Rome.

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

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

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

At the meeting of the European Council tomorrow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell his EEC colleagues that after Scottish self-government they will be able to welcome one strong currency from the British Isles—namely, the Scottish pound, which will be the backbone of EEC currencies and at the same time will assist Scottish farmers in respect of the green pound?

I note the call for independence constantly repeated by the SNP. I have no doubt that it will be rejected by the people of Scotland in due course.

If the Foreign Secretary speaks to Helmut Schmidt, will he remind him of the interests of 17 million people of Bavaria, which was a kingdom 120 years after Scotland, or of 12 million people of Piedmont, also a kingdom long after Scotland became one?

Yes, Sir, I shall be happy to have a word with him on all these matters. But it does not disguise the basic truth—a truth which I hope even members of the SNP may see—that the influence of the United Kingdom in the Community and our economic strength are greater in an integrated United Kingdom than in separate communities. I hope that the SNP will not go on misleading its supporters on this matter.

As our partners in the Common Market have come out firmly in favour of majority rule in Southern Africa and Rhodesia—which I am sure will please my hon. Friends below the Gangway—will they be helping us as partners with aid to Mozambique and also with any aid that might be given, as mentioned by the Minister of State, to people in Rhodesia?

I think that that is a valuable suggestion which follows up something I raised when I made the original statement. We are now contributing aid to Mozambique through the Commonwealth as well as through the United Nations, and it would be appropriate if the Community were to do the same. I would not hesitate to accept such support, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman would also accept it.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the Pyrrhic victory achieved by the Minister of Agriculture at the recent EEC meeting on prices? In whatever capacity he makes the decision, will he ensure that in future the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, or her representative, is also present?

The Question asks when I shall meet my colleagues, not when the Minister of Agriculture will do so. Questions on that matter have already been asked. None of us feels that CAP is a totally perfect instrument. I have no doubt in the light of what is happening in the snake at present and before next year's price review that there will have to be some serious discussion among member States.

Will my right hon, Friend, in his amiable way, tell his EEC colleagues that the people of this country feel disillusioned about the Common Market and are still awaiting the benefits promised them during the referendum campaign?

I am not always amiable, but it depends—[HON. MEMBERS: "On if you win."] I have a feeling that I cannot change a single vote whatever I say; but I keep trying.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet reached any conclusions on the Tindemans Report.

The Report will be discussed at the forthcoming European Council. The Government regard it as a constructive basis for discussion of the development of the Community, even though we can by no means accept everything in it. We shall be happy to join in whatever further work on it the European Council sets in train before reaching any definitive conclusions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in respect of the Tindemans Report many hon. Members on both sides of the House were much encouraged by the statement in his Hamburg speech to the effect that he is not a federalist? Will he give an assurance that so long as he remains in charge of the Foreign Office, in one capacity or another, that statement will remain the keynote of the British Government's policy?

Yes, federalism is failing in Europe and has never been a strongly held view in this country. However, that should not prevent us from trying to get the maximum co-operation among our partners in the Community. We are stronger when we work, speak and act together. Providing we do so with due regard to our individual nationhood—not narrow nationalism—it will be for the benefit of this country as well as Europe.

The Tindemans Report places emphasis on an effective European foreign policy. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation now prevailing in the Lebanon is of very serious import for Europe, whether it results in partition or an extremist takeover? Will he ensure that this subject is discussed at tomorrow's meeting?

The situation in the Lebanon is now the most serious in the Middle East and could give rise to a flare-up in other ways. We are constantly in touch with our allies in the Community as well as in the United States and I should like to put on record my appreciation of the restraint the Israelis have shown in the present situation and of the skill shown by the Syrians in trying to mediate. I hope that the matter will come to the attention of the European Council, though the agenda is a matter for agreement among us all.

If, as the Tindemans Report insists, we have direct elections to the European Parliament, can my right hon. Friend give us some idea of the kind of issues on which such elections would be fought, supposing, for example, that the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and I were opposing candidates for the same seat?

It would be a very interesting election, but I am not sure how much enlightenment the electors would get.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he rejects the idea of a two-tier Community with first and second-class membership, as proposed in the Tindemans Report? Does he agree that it is essential to make progress in monetary and economic matters in order to move towards a unified reserve currency?

A two-tier Community has no prospect of holding the Community together and must be rejected. On economic and monetary union, I repeat my personal conviction that attempts to revive the snake, even if it sloughs half-a-dozen skins, will fail until there is some economic convergence. It is putting the cart before the horse to try to erect a monetary system until our economies are moving more closely together.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the best hope for Europe lies in an orderly advance by nation States with their assent? Does he agree that the suggestion in the Tindemans Report that majority decisions should be taken and that all countries should come into line, irrespective of their views, would be a retrograde rather than an advancing step?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. I suppose that there are minor matters on which a country would not feel it necessary to hold out if it was in a minority, but I have never seen any major issue of importance to one nation being discussed in the Council of Ministers where that country has been willing to yield if it felt it was going to be put at a major disadvantage. It would break the Community if there were an attempt to enforce a policy different from that.

Is it not strange and wrong that, despite repeated requests, the House has not yet debated this important Report before our Prime Ministers, old and new, go to Luxembourg to discuss it tomorrow? The right hon. Gentleman has given us hints that there are parts of the Report which he does not think should be followed, but are there any ideas in the Report which he thinks should be pursued in the interests of this country and the Community?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman raises this topic. There was a Supply Day yesterday and it is for the Opposition to choose what we discuss on those days. If they wish to debate direct elections rather than the Tindemans Report, they cannot complain the next day. The question of a debate on the Report is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but debates can be arranged and there are several Supply Days coming up if the Opposition wish to use them. However, it is a long-range Report and there will be no decisions taken on it tomorrow or the next day.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

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

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford).

I cannot understand why this Question was not linked with the others my right hon. Friend has just answered. When he next meets the EEC leaders, will my right hon. Friend, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary or any other capacity, convey to them that British miners, among many other workers, are getting more than a little dissatisfied at having to pay higher prices and taxes in order to assist the removal of mountains of surpluses of various foodstuffs, especially as there are 30 million tons of British coal which the Common Market countries are refusing to get rid of?

The reason the Questions were not linked was that I understood that there was a request some time ago that not too many Questions should be linked. I am perfectly willing to go back to the old system, which is more convenient to Ministers and less convenient to hon. Members. I will not convey the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend to the European Council leaders because I do not think that it accurately reflects the situation.

When he meets his colleagues tomorrow, will the Foreign Secretary discuss with them the need for a relationship to co-ordinate policies and actions on international affairs such as those adopted towards Angola and neighbouring countries?

This is a matter for continuing discussion. We did not wholly succeed on Angola, but that was not the fault of this Government. I am very much in favour of closer co-ordination, although naturally some countries, and on occasions we would be among them, would not wish to stifle individual initiative.

Since my right hon. Friend has dismissed any support for federalism from the Government in particular and the country in general, will he tell the EEC leaders tomorrow that the Government are not in favour of the suggestion in the Tindemans Report that powers of legislation should be given to a directly elected European Assembly? Will he not agree that the combination of these two matters is a distinct step towards the federalism which he has disavowed?

This is a little like recooking yesterday's cabbage. The Government's position on giving legislative powers to the European Assembly was made quite clear in my speech and other speeches from this Box earlier this week. The powers of the European Assembly will be the powers it now has under the Treaty.

When the Foreign Secretary meets his opposite numbers, will he try to persuade them to get together to reverse the vile and abhorrent resolution of the United Nations on anti-Zionism? Is there not something which could be done by European leaders to alter that resolution?

I am not sure to which resolution the hon. Member is referring, though there have been some against which we have found it necessary to vote because of their anti-Zionism. However, I do not think that this would be a profitable subject for discussion at Luxembourg. There is constant contact among the ambassadors of the Nine at the United Nations when these matters are coming before the Security Council.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the recommendations, if it can be called that, in the Tindemans Report is that prominent European leaders should address the European Assembly and that their addresses should be followed by debates on matters of European concern? When he becomes Prime Minister next week, will my right hon. Friend be averse to that kind of visit or in favour of it?

My hon. Friend asked me a question about this in my capacity as Foreign Secretary a week or two ago. My attitude is the same today. I would be ready to address the European Assembly if it thought that that would be profitable and useful. That will continue to be my attitude as long as I remain Foreign Secretary.

As the Foreign Secretary and the acting Prime Minister will be anxious to repeat to the other leaders in the EEC their assurance yesterday that they will not fall out of line with other member States on the timetable for direct elections, does that not inevitably mean that our domestic preparations must be terminated by August at the latest?

I shall be able to give a better answer to that next week after I have seen how the other countries regard the proposal. The line we should adopt, and which I would propose to adopt in view of yesterday's debate, is to be ready to move as fast as the other countries move. That is a balanced statement, because I am not yet sure how far all the other countries are ready to move, but we must certainly keep up with them.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is not a question of recooking yesterday's cabbage, but he is cooking up a complicated thesis which I should like him to try to unravel? I understand him to have said that he is agreeable to direct elections to the European Parliament with Treaty powers, that he is against federalism and that he thinks that Europe must move much more quickly towards economic unity. Are not those three together a basis for the federalism to which my right hon. Friend is opposed?

I do not think that I phrased that last point in the way my hon. Friend put it. If there is to be economic integration—and how better could the Community start than by tackling the problem of structural unemployment, which is likely to dog Western Europe and wider areas for the next four or five years?—my position is that there will have to be common action on these matters which will need to precede monetary union. That is not quite the way my hon. Friend put it.

In view of the Foreign Secretary's experience as a candidate in an election, may we take it that when he next meets EEC leaders he will not be proclaiming the virtues of the first past the post system? In view of the Minister of State's discourtesy to us last night, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Select Committee will have sufficiently wide terms of reference to discuss direct elections?

My right hon. Friend last night was asked to give way at two minutes to 10 o'clock when he was in the middle of his peroration by an hon. Member who had not been present during the debate. I see nothing discourteous in that, except on the part of the hon. Gentleman who was trying to interrupt him. The question of voting systems will be a matter for the Select Committee to consider if it so wishes, although I do not depart from my own view that our existing system will best serve the people of this country.