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

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

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

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his former capacity as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, set out in his statement of 22nd March the terms on which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to become involved in further efforts to negotiate a settlement. Recent events in Rhodesia can only have underlined the need for the white community to face up to the realities of the situation and to do so soon.

As it is increasingly clear that the only hope of a secure and peaceful future in Rhodesia for both European and Africans lies in a negotiated settlement leading to early majority rule, has not the time come for a new British attempt to stop the drift to disaster and to disaster and to restart negotiations—subject, of course, to the hesitation of the Secretary of State—for example, by calling together a conference outside Rhodesia to which the right hon. Gentleman could invite not only Mr. Smith and the African leaders but perhaps some representatives of neigh bouring States?

No, Sir. I have considered this very carefully, as obviously my predecessor did, and I share his view that no further direct intervention by Her Majesty's Government would be effective unless there were a prior commitment on the part of the Smith régime in Rhodesia to the four preconditions set out by my predecessor in his statement of 22nd March. Otherwise we should simply start off again on that long, stony road that we did not advance up but tried to inch up over the last 12 years.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new responsibilities, and on the elevation of Grimsby to be one of the chancelleries of Europe. Could he now perhaps accept that the whole House would welcome the Kissinger acceptance of the British Government's initiatives, and particularly the undertaking on the part of the American Administration to repeal the Byrd amendment concerning the sale of chrome by Rhodesia to the United States? Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is now a case for saying to the Rhodesian people, black and white alike, that Her Majesty's Government will talk to any representatives of both communities there who will move for a settlement not by the cosmetic means now being employed by Mr. Smith?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. I approach this new task with great diffidence, and I hope that hon. Members will be tolerant if during my apprenticeship I fail to answer all their questions to their total satisfaction.

I add our congratulations to the new Foreign Secretary, and hope that he has a very successful and very brief tenure of office. Will he confirm that it is really his intention to do nothing whatsoever about Rhodesia?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, grateful for the letter he wrote to me in the columns of The Times. It at least had the advantage that I did not have to send an acknowledgement.

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend. In the light of the very important Kissinger speech, would it not be wise for Her Majesty's Government at least to explore whether behind the brave words that Mr. Smith is putting out in Salisbury there may not now be a realisation that he is totally isolated in the Western world and that it is time to come to terms with the African majority?

I shall certainly continue to consider—and consider daily—whether there is a new initiative that I could take, or that Her Majesty's Government could take, that would ease the situation. But for the moment the essential thing is for the white community in Rhodesia to grasp the full significance of the Kissinger speech, which means that they are dealing not just with the British Government and the four presidents, but with an opinion now held by the whole world community.

Is the right hon Gentleman aware that, although we wish him well, he and Dr. Kissinger have made a bad start in Africa and that between them the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the American Secretary of State are undermining every moderate person in Rhodesia and giving comfort to Soviet imperialism in Southern Africa? Since Southern Africa is vital to the European economy and to Western strategy, how does the right hon. Gentleman now propose to make his stand to defend those vital British interests?

Apart from questions of morality and justice about majority rule, which I leave aside for the moment, if the hon. Gentleman is talking about legitimacy in terms of national interests and in terms of the global balance of power, I suggest to him that. if the United Kingdom Government and Dr. Kissinger had not taken the line that we have taken, we should have undermined every single moderate black leader in the entire continent of Africa.

rose—

Order. This subject arises again.

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

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane).

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that in the light of Mr. Smith's response to Dr. Kissinger's speech yesterday, the Government should now recognise the apprehensions that are felt by all minority groups in Rhodesia, and not only white minority groups, as to their future in an independent Zimbabwe? In those circumstances, will he now publicise Her Majesty's Government's proposals for their protection during any transfer of power and afterwards?

No, as of now I am not prepared to go beyond what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 22nd March. As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend said that any consideration of safeguards and guarantees for the white minority must come in stage two, after, not before, the Smith regime has announced its acceptance of the four preconditions mentioned in his statement. That still seems to be the right order in which to proceed, but this is something that I am keeping very much in mind in case the situation changes.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Smith has proved a very slippery customer who has utilised every gesture and overture that has been made by the British Government to extend his period in power? Is there not a danger that even a progression of two years, as suggested by Dr. Kissinger, towards majority rule would be utilised for further procrastination?

There is no doubt that there has been a lot of procrastination on the part of Mr. Smith over the past 12 years. The "18 months to two years", as the Prime Minister put it, is not a period during which we think no movement should occur. It should be a period during which the elections to provide majority rule must occur. Of course, it will take some time to work out electoral arrangements. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to take a period of 18 months to two years. Should any change in the situation occur which alters our view, we shall still be able to alter it.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Dr. Kissinger's one-sided approach to the problem of Rhodesia, an approach that was made without even going to see the situation at first-hand or informing himself of the position of the Opposition, is widely regretted? Furthermore, is he aware that any decision to give economic assistance, either by the British Government or the American Government, to Governments which are countenancing the use of their territory for terrorist activity against British territory is widely resented by millions of people in this country?

The question of British aid to Mozambique has been many times discussed at Question Time. We have made it clear more than once why we think that the aid should be given. They are the reasons which were repeated by Dr. Kissinger in his speech in Lusaka yesterday. It seems a proper stance to adopt, to be one-sided in support of democracy.

What representations has the right hon. Gentleman made to President Machel of Mozambique about the actions of terrorist gangs from Mozambique, such as committing armed robbery and murder in the British territory of Rhodesia?

I deplore that incident as it was reasonably and properly deplored by the South African Government. Such incidents are regrettable wherever they occur and whoever is responsible, but we have said repeatedly that violence is inevitable in Rhodesia unless agreement can be reached on a rapid transfer to majority rule.

What representations are being made by the Foreign Secretary?

There have been no representations—

Disgraceful!

because acts of violence will be committed in different parts of the sub-continent by different sides as long as there is no sign of any settlement over Rhodesia. It is impossible to make representations every time an act of violence occurs. The lesson to be drawn from the violence is the need for an early settlement of the Rhodesian problem.

Will my right hon. Friend look further into the interesting question put to him by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) about closing the border between South Africa and Rhodesia, since clearly to impose the widest sanctions will drive home to white Rhodesians that they are totally isolated?

I will look into that matter, but I stress, as I did in answer to the Question, that there is a limit to our power or, indeed, influence in a matter of this kind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to foreign embassies in London concerning the number of parking fines unpaid by personnel on embassy staffs enjoying diplomatic immunity.

Every month a formal note is sent to the head of each diplomatic mission in London enclosing a list of the fixed penalty notices cancelled for members of his staff on the grounds of diplomatic immunity and requesting the head of mission to take appropriate action.

As 53,477 fines were cancelled on grounds of diplomatic immunity in 1975—more than 1,000 a week—can the Minister of State say why other people in London should have to endure worse traffic jams just because diplomats who ought to obey the laws of the host countries in which they are working are exploiting their immunity for a purpose which was never intended? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do about it?

Other people do not enjoy the same benefits because other people are not covered by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which makes two matters quite clear. One is that we cannot distinguish between one sort of crime or offence and another. The other is that we must either sign the convention—every part and every aspect of it—or not sign it and thereby put our own diplomats abroad under grave threat and at very difficult risks. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes and, as a London driver and occasional parker, I share some of the difficulties which he has described. But I do not believe that there is any alternative to the present system.

As the most persistent offenders, apart from Cuba and Egypt, are the oil-rich States of Iran, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia, ought not we to consider some form of rate surcharge on the embassies of those States—[Interruption]— since the cost to London is £250,000 a year?

I did not quite get the final part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question because of the unanimous support for it which seemed to come from both sides of the House. However, I am sure that questions of a rate surcharge have to go to a Department other than the Foreign Office. On the general application of fines, I think that there is nothing that we can do.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this problem is probably worst in my own constituency and that there are sections of the diplomatic community who behave in flagrant disregard of the interests of the people of London? Does not he agree that, if he cannot do anything else, the Foreign Office could at least publish a list of offenders so that we might see which missions behaved in an irresponsible fashion and abused our hospitality so grievously?

I am sure that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would not make any contribution to good international relations or serve the purposes which we hope that missions in this country are intended to serve were we to publish such a list. What would most certainly be revealed by such a list is that, although there are bad offenders, there are other missions which behave in quite the opposite way and, although they are under no obligation to do so, occasionally refund the total costs of ignored parking fines immediately. But I do not think that discriminating between the good and the bad by publishing their names would really do very much to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will establish an exchange fund, on a permanent basis, with the aim of stimulating reciprocal programmes involving young people.

Her Majesty's Government are in favour of programmes for the exchange of young people but allocations of finance for such exchanges are made in the light of the available resources, the priorities of competing demands for funds, and our cultural relations with other countries. Separate and reciprocal exchange funds would offer no advantages and might prove less flexible in application.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not got the point of my Question. I am suggesting that when he meets the Council of Ministers he should try to persuade it to set up a fund pari passu each youth population in each of the Common Market countries so that young people from all the Common Market countries can involve themselves in community work in each of the countries in proportion to the numbers of young people in each of those countries. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could—

Order. That is enough for now.

I was fully aware of the point in the original Question. I am also aware of the proposals of the working group of which the hon. Gentleman was chairman. The Government are very much in favour of the maximum possible exchanges between the young people of the Community countries. We have to consider the best way of doing this, and the British Council is already considering the proposals of the hon. Gentleman and his team. We must await its report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or one of his Ministers plans an early meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Neither my right hon. Friend nor any of his Ministers has any plans to do so at present.

Although I appreciate the reluctance of the Front Bench team to answer my Question, when the Foreign Secretary or one of his Ministers next visits the United Nations will he take the opportunity to reaffirm this country's support of that international body and draw attention to the concern felt in many parts of this country at the seeming double standards of the United Nations when on occasions it appears to condemn aggression and on others to condone it depending entirely, apparently, on whether the aggression comes from a Third World country?

First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the United Nations and its purposes—a support shared by Her Majesty's Government with which I personally agree very much. As to whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with individual resolutions, I am sure that he will agree that no country will ever find itself in agreement with every resolution passed by the United Nations. It is dangerous if the United Nations appears to display double standards. But unless the hon. Gentleman is a good deal more explicit than he has been, it is impossible for me to answer the second part of his supplementary question.

On the subject of double standards, was not the recent resolution passed by the Security Council on 31st March condemning South African intervention in Angola after the South Africans had withdrawn their troops and without even mentioning Cuban or Russian intervention utterly one-sided and hypocritical? Will the British Government go to the United Nations and seek the withdrawal of Cuban and Russian imperialism from Southern Africa?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's criticism of that resolution. He should bear in mind that when that resolution was being put forward there were still South African forces in Angola, completely against the will of the Government already established in Angola, which had been recognised by a large proportion of the nations of the world, including Her Majesty's Government. In that situation, it was not surprising that the United Nations should seek to pass a resolution condemning the continued presence of those forces in Angola against the will of the Angolan Government.

As well as reiterating our commitment to the United Nations, will Her Majesty's Government also work within the United Nations to bring about majority rule in Namibia and Rhodesia, especially in view of the new American initiative, and at the same time try to take off the agenda the item which has been there longest, which is the item to work to end the apartheid system in South Africa?

On Rhodesia, my hon. Friend knows that we are committed to the principle of introducing majority rule and that we have asked the Smith Government to agree to this within two years. That has now been supported by the United States Government.

When the Minister visits the General Secretary of the United Nations, will he tell him that the British Government accept the general terms of Dr. Kissinger's recent declaration and that on those grounds it will not object to the admission of an independent Scotland to the United Nations?

We support and welcome the statement made by Dr. Kissinger on Rhodesia, but that is irrelevant to whether there should be an independent Government of Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to pay an official visit to the United States of America.

Yes, Sir. I look forward to accompanying Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on their State visit to the United States of America from 6th to 11th July.

When the right hon. Gentleman goes to the United States will he make sure that he gets his priorities right and that if, for example, he meets the President or Dr. Kissinger he will not require him to get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to fly to some out-of-the- way airport simply to suit his own party political whims?

The ignorance of British geography which must exist in Chester is very remarkable. Lincolnshire and that whole area of Humberside is one of the premier parts of the country and, in my view, Grimsby is one of the most remarkable towns in the whole Commonwealth. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall get my priorities absolutely right when I go to the United States.

Will my right hon. Friend ask Washington to keep the CIA out of Britain and to stop it recruiting mercenaries for Africa?

I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion very carefully indeed. There is a later Question about mercenaries.

In any further conversations the right hon. Gentleman has with Dr. Kissinger when he visits the United States, will he bear in mind that Dr. Kissinger's speech in Lusaka had ominous echoes of Mr. Foster Dulles' attempt to pre-empt Soviet diplomacy in the Middle East in the 1950s? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that many of us feel that he has encouraged Dr. Kissinger to cook a dinner which is more likely to be eaten by the Soviets than by the West?

Dr. Kissinger and I had breakfast together, not dinner. If there are echoes of a previous speech, they are echoes of Mr. Harold Macmillan's "wind of change" speech. The right hon. Member has close and cordial and familiar links with Mr. Macmillan and I imagine that he strongly supported that speech. I believe that Dr. Kissinger's speech was a major event for good in Africa. If he had not made it or had made a speech of a contrary character, the possible effects—apart from the morality of the matter—on the world balance of power would have been disastrous.

When the right hon. Gentleman goes to the United States, will he ensure that he meets Democratic candidates for the presidency as well as the Republican candidate? Is he aware that in a recent article on Mr. Jimmy Carter in the Economist, a picture of the candidate showed him wearing a prominent "England get out of Ireland" button? Does that not show that Mr. Carter must have disregarded Mr. Cosgrave's speech to Cogress and representations made by the British Government to which the American Government have so far helpfully responded?

I shall seek to meet the leading Democratic candidates for the presidency. I certainly support the implications of the hon. Member's remarks about American arms for Ulster, which the police are constantly uncovering. I shall do whatever I can to strengthen the efforts already being made by the British Government to persuade the American Government to take every possible action to prevent this flow of arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to make an early visit to Pretoria.

I have at present no such plans.

When he does have talks with members of the South African Government, will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon them the importance of early progress being made on a timetable for independence for Namibia so that the world can avoid witnessing in that country the kind of bloodshed I now feel to be inevitable in Rhodesia?

I very much agree with the hon. Member. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has already referred to our view on Namibia, which is much in line with that of the hon. Member. Early progress in this direction is crucial if we are to avoid another of the racial situations which are proving so disastrous in Southern Africa.

May I offer the right hon. Gentleman congratulations on behalf of my party on his appointment? I do not know whether he has been to Pretoria in a previous capacity but, if not, is he aware that he will find it a distinctly less congenial place than Grimsby? However, is he aware that we hope that he will not hesitate to go there if he thinks that a visit to his opposite number in South Africa would help the situation in Rhodesia or Namibia?

If I thought a visit would help to contribute to a solution of the racial problems in South Africa, I should not hesitate to go, but at the moment it does not seem that anything particularly profound or good would follow from an early visit.

If my right hon. Friend does consider going to Pretoria, will he make clear that the British Government oppose apartheid with such vehemence that there is no question of any South African defence commitment being allied to NATO?

I would certainly make that clear. It is on the record and our total opposition to apartheid has been stated many times.

What discussions has the right hon. Gentleman had with the South African Government about the possibility of closing South Africa's road and rail links with Rhodesia and blocking Rhodesia's access to foreign exchange?

I have not had discussions on this subject in the three weeks I have been in office. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but we have no particular power to impose policies on South Africa, whether we want to or not. There is a limit in practice to the influence we can bring to bear.

In the light of six recent revelations of vast exports of arms from Great Britain to South Africa, will my right hon. Friend tell Pretoria there will be no more—either direct or indirect—and that this is part of the programme on which we fought the General Election?

Defence equipment is a matter for my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Defence and Trade. On trade in general, it has been our policy to trade with all nations, regardless of their internal political structure.

As part of his apprenticeship, as the right hon. Gentleman so charmingly put it, will he resolve to put British interests first and consider where we are to get our uranium and chromium rather than moralising about the internal problems of other countries?

In my period of apprenticeship, to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred, I am new to considerations of foreign policy, but I have always assumed that the foreign policy of this country under successive Governments must be a reasonable balance between national self-interest and morality. The difficulty is in drawing the line where it should be drawn, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that I am not lacking in national patriotism.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to meet the Foreign Minister of Irael.

My right hon. Friend will be delighted to meet Mr. Allon, but there are no plans for a meeting at present.

As it is in the British interest to see peace in the Middle East, will the right hon. Gentleman seek an opportunity of telling the Israeli Government that, whatever the injustices they have suffered over the past few years, their policy of deliberately establishing Jewish settlements in Arab-occupied territory in contravention of United Nations resolutions is likely to exacerbate the situation and to increase tensions in the area? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that view to the Israeli Government?

I share the hon. Gentleman's view that to continue building settlements in occupied territory can only impede negotiations and the beginning of negotiations. As I hold that view, I am pleased to hear it articulated by the hon. Gentleman and to endorse it.

Will my right hon. Friend seek an early meeting with the Foreign Minister of Israel to express disquiet about reports that Rhodesian forces are at present training with and awaiting shipments of Israeli-made machine guns? Will he make it clear to the Foreign Minister of Israel that it would be a great disappointment to many of Israel's friends in Great Britain if Israel were to conclude an arms deal in respect of arms and equipment to South African forces?

As I have not heard of such reports, I am reluctant to comment on them. I share my hon. Friend's view that, if such reports were proved to be accurate, they would represent a great mistake, and many of Israel's friends in this country, among whom I number myself, would be deeply grieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in regard to the Cyprus situation; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's Government hope that genuine negotiations at the intercommunal talks will soon be resumed. We maintain warm support for the efforts of Dr. Waldheim.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interests and future of the island are being sacrificed and that the island is being used as a pawn in terms of ageing oil politics, possible membership of the European Community and as a means, possibly, of gaining NATO arms? Is it not time that the British Government, as a guarantor nation, decided to take some initiative to help bring bout a solution and an agreement on the so far unacceptable proposals submitted by both Turkey and Greece?

I do not think that any of the causes that my hon. Friend lists have contributed towards a failure to make the sort of progress that both he and I wish to see. The real basis of the difficulty is that old hatreds, fears and exploitations are now being played out in new circumstances. I assure my hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government are willing to take whatever initiatives seem practicable and possible. Although both my hon. Friend and I can only decry the unhappy situation in which the island now finds itself, all of us find it much more difficult to suggest remedies that the United Kingdom could apply. Therefore, I fear that the situation must continue until the intercommunal talks make some real progress.

What steps will the right hon. Gentleman take to ensure that goods in the ownership of Turkish Cypriots which are now in one of the two British sovereign bases on the island, are returned to their legitimate owners? Secondly, what will he do to prevent the importation to this country of illegally seized Greek Cypriot works of antiquity?

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question involves a matter which needs a good deal of qualification and a legal interpretation. If the hon. Gentleman needs an answer to that issue, he must table a Question so that the Law Officers are able to give a considered judgment upon it.

Is it not a fact that the bilateral talks to which the Minister has referred, which are taking place in Vienna, have broken down as a result of the resignation of Mr. Clerides as the representative of the Government of Cyprus? If that is so, do not Her Majestys Government have distinct responsibilities, as the right hon. Gentleman indicated, to take some initiative to get the talks going again, or, if that is not possible, to find some other way of making progress towards a solution?

Unfortunately, Mr. Clerides has resigned, but new negotiators have been appointed from both sides and I understand that they enjoy the support of both communities on the island. The task now is to get them talking, leading to intercommunal talks. We are doing all that we can quietly and privately, which is often a rather more successful approach in these matters than publicised initiatives, to make sure that the talks begin and continue satisfactorily. If the hon. Gentleman has any practical suggestions, or if any of my hon. Friends have any practical suggestions about what else we should be doing, I shall be happy to consider them, but practical suggestions in this area have been very scarce.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he expects to meet EEC leaders in the near future.

I shall be meeting the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC in Luxembourg on 14th and 15th May.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the areas in which the Community has the best prospect of making progress is the concerting of foreign policy? In that connection, will he pay attention to the situation in Yugoslavia, to which country concerted EEC and, indeed, NATO policy is desirable in view of the clear evidence that the Soviet Union is making preparations to attempt to put Yugoslavia under Soviet control?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's general proposition that one of the most fruitful lines of development in the Community should be to concert foreign policy. Indeed, it was in the belief that that was possible that I first became a supporter of our entry into the Common Market. [Interruption.]I am still, on the whole, a supporter as long as the EEC allows the fisheries policy to come all right. I have no statement to make on Yugoslavia.

Will my right hon. Friend ask Common Market leaders to produce a joint list indicating all those occasions when other Common Market countries have contravened the Treaty of Rome? Has not the issue been highlighted by the recent shipping convention, which seemingly allows three Common Market nations to take part in an activity which contravenes the article about free competition at a time when we in Britain are being weighed down by VAT, surrounded by surpluses, and have a massive trade deficit with the rest of the Common Market which seemingly British trade unions are now being asked to resolve by having a pay policy of 3 per cent. or whatever goes with it?

It is on the tip of my tongue to give my hon. Friend the latest house building figures, but I know from long experience of his deep concern for the rule of European law. I should like seriously to consider his suggestion.

On Rhodesia and the Foreign Ministers of the Common Market, as all the EEC countries are in favour of a transfer to majority rule as speedily as possible—one of the few occasions on which they have spoken with one voice—will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether Common Market Ministers agree with Dr. Kissinger's policy as well?

Common Market Ministers have certainly reinforced and publicly supported the Prime Minister's statement of 22nd March. As I understand Dr. Kissinger's speech—like the hon. Gentleman, I have read only a summary of it—it is very much on the same lines as the Prime Minister's statement. If so—I do not know whether there are differences in detail—I think that it can be assumed that the Common Market Ministers support it.

Is my right hon. Friend wholly satisfied with the Common Market fisheries policy?

No, Sir. Even though people in Chester do not know where Grimsby is, I shall certainly make sure that other countries of the Common Market know where it is. My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I propose to take a personal interest in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, which is absolutely crucial to the future of the British fishing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends to put forward for effective democratic control of the EEC.

The Council of Ministers, where the important Community decisions are taken, consists of Ministers of the Governments of the member States, each of whom is accountable to a democratically elected Parliament. We see this as providing the main effective channel of democratic control at the present stage of the Community's development. The European Parliament can also play a useful rôle, as we recognised in our proposals to strengthen financial control in the Community.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is as unhappy with that answer as I am. Now that he has a new Secretary of State, will he make it plain that he has the opportunity of improving on the lamentable and purely negative record of his predecessor? Instead of clucking about in Europe like a wet hen, he should start making proposals to the people who expected the British to have something to say about democratic control.

I am not unhappy with that answer, not least because I wrote it myself. I know the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I must say that I fear it, not only as one who wants to be realistic about the EEC, but as one who supports the EEC and wants it to gain support throughout the entire Community, because people like the hon. Gentleman, who constantly want the Community to do more, without defining what "more" should be and the value of more, do the Community more harm than good.

Has my right hon. Friend read the various letters in The Times recently by prominent members of the European Movement who maintain that the European Parliament should have the power not only to influence the decisions of the Council of Ministers but to reject them if necessary? If that is not the complete abrogation of national sovereignty and is not federalism rearing its ugly head, I should like to know what is.

I have read those views, but I do not share them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman worried that the momentum towards direct elections by 1978, or close to it, is now fading away? Does not that underline the importance of the July meeting of the European Council?

I am always worried by metaphysical concepts such as momentum towards integration and other things which I hear both in this House and in Brussels and which I find it difficult to describe or draw or give any quantitative value to. I am sure that most member nations, like Great Britain, are prepared to see direct elections when they are practically possible. I think that some other countries now realise something that we discovered a year ago—namely, that there are some technical and constitutional difficulties involved in preparing for direct elections and in ensuring that Governments who have committed themselves in Brussels and elsewhere have the support of their domestic legislatures. We have always accepted that position and we accept it today.

Following that answer, when will the Government put before the House practical proposals for a Select Committee, which the former Foreign Secretary announced in our debate on this subject well before Easter?

I do not think that I should transgress any further. The next Question is directly concerned with direct elections, so perhaps I should leave that answer to the subsequent Question.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about direct elections to the European Assembly, following the meeting of EEC Heads of State in Luxembourg.

The European Council asked the Foreign Ministers to do further work on the subject and to report back to the Heads of Government in July. The Council of Ministers will consider the matter further at its meeting on 3rd and 4th May.

May we have an assurance from the Minister that after that meeting he will come to the House and make a statement on what went on, because this House is very much in the dark as to what goes on? Will he tell the House what the French proposed at the Council meeting?

It is not possible to go into many details about suggestions made by our colleagues in preparation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—for negotiations carried on by the nine Foreign Ministers. Indeed, it has been the tradition of the House, accepted by all other than those who always make that kind of noise when I explain the conventions of the Council of Ministers, that the negotiations carried on by the nine Foreign Ministers are best not carried on in a blaze of major publicity. The idea that the French Government have put forward as perhaps the best solution is a Parliament or an Assembly of approximately the same size as that which has previously not been elected, and that idea has appeared in newspapers and is well known. If the hon. Gentleman wants a statement after next Monday or Tuesday, I shall be happy to make one. The record in the House following Councils of Foreign Ministers is clear. When a statement is not made, hon. Members complain. When a statement is made, they are bored. I shall do what I can to meet the wishes of the House.

What is the British Government's reaction to this French proposal as reported? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that one advantage of a smaller number, roughly the same size as the present Assembly, would be that, if an individual country did not wish to proceed to direct elections, we could continue to send the same number of Members as at present without any extra burden on the House?

The Government have made clear that, when they come, we should like to see direct elections to an Assembly of a rather larger size than the present Assembly. We should find it very difficult to proceed to direct elections on the basis of the French proposals. That would produce a situation which was altogether unsatisfactory.

As a Select Committee is to be appointed to inquire into this whole problem, will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will take no decisions until the Committee has reported and its report has been debated by the House?

I certainly assure my right hon. Friend that the Government's wish is to do exactly as he describes. But this must be a two-way process. The other Governments of the Community want to move quickly on these matters. Therefore, if we are to move as a Government one step behind the Select Committee, the Select Committee will have to carry out its functions with a great deal of dispatch. If there is good will on both sides, I am sure that we shall observe the principle that my right hon. Friend has laid down, but there will be pressures on both the Government and the Select Committee.

Does the Minister understand that his answers are entirely unsatisfactory even to those of us, including myself, who voted "Yes" in the referendum last year? Does he further understand that crucial to the issue of direct elections to the European Parliament are the powers of that Parliament and the future organisation of the constitution of the European Community? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Government's thinking about that crucial subject?

I did so at the end of the two-day debate on direct elections three weeks ago—a debate, if my mind serves me correctly, in which the hon. Gentleman did not take part. It took me 10 minutes to describe the constitutional provisions governing the power of the European Assembly. Its powers are as described in the Treaty of Rome. They cannot be changed without the support of this Parliament, and I cannot imagine this Parliament giving support for excessive increases in the powers of the European Assembly.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer on the international discussions taking place at the Council of Ministers? Is it not an absolute outrage that he should suggest that these discussions take place in private? Is not this some indication that the declaration of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House that we were to move towards open government is to be very short-lived

I think that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that for progress to be made in international discussions, with nine Foreign Ministers trying to come to a consensus and general compromise, it is not always the wisest course either to announce what we propose to say at the beginning or to announce what we are prepared to accept at the end. Let me mention two facts. We have always been willing to make a statement after Council meetings describing the conclusions reached on those occasions. Secondly, there is the most absolute safeguard about direct elections. Nothing can happen without legislation in this House and the will of the House being demonstrated by its votes. There is no question of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, or the Prime Minister or anyone else, doing something without my hon. Friend's knowledge.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not much use his urging the Select Committee to make speed when the Government have not produced proposals for the Select Committee? When will these proposals be made?

I hope that the announcement of the Select Committee's terms of reference, or suggestions for it and suggested membership, can be made to the House very soon. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present. He is well aware of the need for progress. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that there is an announcement in the very near future.

Has the Minister of State discovered whether the new Foreign Secretary is any more open minded or far-sighted on the question of the method of electing representatives to the European Parliament than his predecessor?

I do not quite understand the implication of that question, and I fear that if I did I should be unwilling to answer it. The simple position is that the Government feel themselves committed by their treaty obligations to hold direct elections, and that we shall do as soon as constitutionally and practically possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the moves towards harmonisation within the EEC.

Provided our national interests are safeguarded, we support measures to remove technical barriers to trade and to facilitate fair competition. We do not, however, believe in gratuitous harmonisation or harmonisation for its own sake.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the House what he is doing to curb the apparently insatiable zest for harmonisation by the Brussels bureaucrats, from dressed poultry to skimmed milk? Will he comment on his earlier answer on the votes of the House given towards Community proposals, bearing in mind that on the skimmed milk Order the votes of this House made not a whit of difference? What moves on harmonisation are we making on wages, which are generally higher in the other Community countries, and on holidays, which are generally fewer in the United Kingdom? Will those two matters be harmonised?

On the final point, I doubt it. On the previous two points, on the skimmed milk directive the House proceeded in a way recommended and endorsed by the Scrutiny Committee, which said that it knew that there might have to be progress made before the wishes of the House were finally known. Notwithstanding that, the Leader of the House made it clear that there could be a second debate on this subject, and no doubt there will be. My hon. Friend also refers—if I may mix a metaphor—to the hoary old chestnut of eviscerated chicken. This is one of the occasions, as is so often the case, when something that the Community is doing is wholly approved of by the domestic Department. As I understand it, the Minister of Agriculture believed that proposition to be in the interests of hygiene. It so happens, in the current state of national opinion, that the Community gets blamed for these things and is accused of reckless harmonisation. It happens to be a good thing, as are so many of the Community proposals.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in accepting the comment on the subject of skimmed milk he is dealing with something on which there is no harmony at all, nor any harmonisation envisaged? Perhaps he will also recognise that by introducing the principle of the optional directive on harmonisation the Community is greatly assisting intra-Community trade and has done nothing but good in this field. Will he encourage the Community to proceed with this line?

The new principle of optional harmonisation is altogether desirable. It helps to facilitate those measures to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade without bearing over-onerously on individual member Governments. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman drew that to the attention of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the previous Prime Minister quite recently described the common agricultural policy as a nonsense, or alluded to the nonsenses of its operation? Does he also agree that most people thought that there would be economic advantages in remaining in the Common Market but that no one thought that there would be much advantage from retaining the so-called common agricultural policy? What hope does my right hon. Friend hold out for a British contribution to changing the situation fairly rapidly?

The House has been told by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture every month that we have made substantial alterations to the CAP during the past two years. We made them during renegotiation and have made them since. We intend to continue making those improvements which we regard as essential if the CAP is properly to reflect the needs of consumers as well as producers.

While it must now be obvious that to proceed to economic and monetary union as originally suggested in the Werner Report would be futile, have not the last few weeks shown that it is highly desirable to co-ordinate our exchange rate policy and interest-rate policy with other members of the EEC?

I certainly subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's first point—that the old concept of economic and monetary union was something which would never work and which has now been demonstrated as certain to fail. The hon. Gentleman's second point is more appropriate for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food goes to Luxembourg for an emergency meeting of the Common Market Agriculture Ministers tomorrow? We hope that he will strongly resist any attempt to change the rate of the green pound, as to do so would add considerably to the food bill in this country and make it totally impossible to continue a decent incomes policy.

I assure my hon. Friend that there is absolutely no question of the green pound being changed in any way which does not observe the assurances and safeguards for British financing within the common agricultural policy which were specified in the Treaty of Accession.