asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on halting nuclear proliferation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy in halting nuclear proliferation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on halting nuclear proliferation.

We believe that the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 remains the best available means of halting the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives technology. We have taken active steps to encourage the widest possible membership of the treaty and are constantly in touch with other Governments to promote further non-proliferation measures.

I wonder whether the Foreign Secretary had the opportunity while in China to discuss with the Chinese Government their probable agreement to the treaty and participation in the spirit thereof. If so, will my right hon. Friend give us any details of those discussions?

There is a later Question on the Order Paper about my right hon. Friend's visit to China, which he is answering himself. I am sure it is important that this matter should be dealt with then by him.

Is the Minister aware that the present British Government and past British Governments must bear their share of responsibility for the spread of nuclear weapons, in that they have not given a lead in renouncing them? Is he further aware that the British Government have not even implemented the policy of the Labour Party, as declared at its own annual conference, in regard to Polaris?

The hon. Gentleman significantly leaves out of his question one word, "unilateral", in speaking of renunciation. It is not and never has been my view that unilateral renunciation would promote peace in the world.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government's efforts in halting the spread of nuclear proliferation would be helped if there were a Minister specifically appointed for disarmament here in the House of Commons, as was promised in 1964? Should not the Prime Minister be concerned to make that sort of appointment from among those with a long history of work in the Labour movement rather than appoint a hack from The Times or consider various dubious people in the City and make them Lords?

All the questions that my hon. Friend asks about ministerial responsibilities are not only unrelated to the Question but 14 years out of date.

Disarmament is never out of place.

The Government should be judged by what they have achieved rather than by who is responsible for those achievements in Ministries. If my hon. Friend will look at our achievements in the nuclear proliferation field, he will see that they are considerable.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards concerning trade in nuclear materials and nuclear installations to ensure that recipient nations do not develop nuclear weapon capability?

I can speak only for the United Kingdom and our policy on these matters, and certainly we accept all the safeguard régimes proposed to us. Indeed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his previous capacity, gave a very long answer to the House describing how we insist on safeguards being applied before we co-operate in any of these multilateral affairs.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remind his hon. Friend that the previous Labour Government had a Minister for disarmament in Lord Chalfont but found him redundant because the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then Minister of Defence, did all the disarming on his own unilaterally?

I agree that it was difficult to recognise Lord Chalfont in the description given by my hon. Friend in his question, but much more important than that—if there is a serious content to the hon. Gentleman's question—is the fact that the Government are wholly committed simultaneously to the policies of defence and disarmament. Those two things have to go hand in hand. Detente and deterrence cannot be separated, and we are wedded to both those concepts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will raise in the United Nations Security Council the threat to world peace from the international trade in armaments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will raise in the United Nations Security Council the threat to world peace from the international trade in armaments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will raise in the United Nations Security Council the threat to world peace from the international trade in armaments.

No, Sir. Last year my right hon. Friend drew the attention of the United Nations General Assembly to the need to bring to an end, by serious multilateral negotiations, the enormous waste of resources on weapons of destruction. This is the most practical approach.

Will my right hon. Friend study the legislation currently before Congress which places restrictions on the sale of American arms to countries which consistently violate basic human rights? Is that not a lead we could follow? Could we not, as a first step, withhold armaments from South Korea, where the Government have just arrested the Opposition leaders for calling on the West to withhold trade until democratic freedoms are restored?

I think my hon. Friend knows that, in terms of individual negotiations for arms sales, it is not the practice of this or any other Government of comment. I hope my hon. Friend realises that the Government operate a very stringent licensing system before allowing the sale and export of arms. We apply political, economic and military criteria which are just as effective and proper in the preservation of our interests as is the American legislation.

Is it not clear from the statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, reported today, that the military spending of the Russians has amounted to three times what they have admitted and more than 11 per cent. of their gross national product that the greatest threat to peace arises from the Russian arms build-up? May we expect from the Government, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman said, an initiative, which no doubt would be given enthusiastic support from Government supporters below the Gangway, to persuade the Russians to reduce the percentage of their GNP that they spend on arms to the same as our own?

That initiative is and has been taking place for some time in the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the criteria laid down for deciding whether to supply arms to foreign countries, and are those criteria kept under constant review? Can he also impress upon his colleagues the need to include not simply weapons but guidance and other systems when making these decisions?

Clearly, the decisions to which I refer have to be related to a wide variety of materials, not all of which are directly military in the narrow sense of that word. The criteria vary from time to time according to judgments about the changing world situation. I am content that those criteria, as they apply at any one time, are right.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what criteria the Soviet Union applies to its enormous trade in armaments?

That is a question for Mr. Brezhnev and not for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of his visit to the People's Republic of China.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the Far East.

I visited China from 3rd to 9th May, and Japan from 9th to 11th May. In China I had talks with the new Prime Minister, Mr. Hua Kuo-feng, and with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Foreign Trade. In Japan I also had talks with the Prime Minister, Mr. Miki, the Foreign Minister and the Minister of Foreign Trade. The talks in both countries were cordial and constructive, and covered a wide range of international and bilateral issues.

Although many Opposition Members welcome the fact that the Foreign Secretary carried out his trip to China as, I believe, the first ministerial contact between the Labour Government and the Chinese Government, will he accept that the talks, in his own words according to Press reports, did not amount to anything very much, and that this may have had a lot to do with the fact that in his talks on detente in particular he seemed to act as little more than an unpaid apologist for the Soviet Union?

That is hardly the view of the Chinese Ministers to whom I was talking, who took the completely contrary view and constantly criticised me for the fact that I was adopting an opposite stance to that to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I tried to make two matters clear the whole time—two matters which I think represent the views of 90 per cent. of hon. Members. I tried to make it clear that, on the one hand, the West must remain strong, vigilant and determined against the possibility of a Soviet threat and, on the other hand, that that did not rule out the notion of the principle of detente, which is a general attempt to diminish the tension between East and West.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that everyone concerned to see better relations between China and this country will be glad that he made this trip so soon after his appointment and that many Sinologists in the country are worried about the grave imbalance of academic exchanges between the United Kingdom and China? Did he discuss the possibility of senior British scholars spending sabbaticals in China for periods of three to six months?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. The question of cultural exchanges was raised, and there was agreement on both sides that we wanted more of those exchanges than now occur, although quite a number occur at present. I take on board my hon. Friend's point about the importance of academic visits. Having secured this agreement in principle for more exchanges, I should like now, through normal diplomatic channels, to settle the detail of how we see them taking place.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us welcome his visit to Peking representing Her Majesty's Government but were surprised by the very short time that he deigned to spend in Hong Kong, the biggest British colony in the world today? Is he aware, secondly, that many of us would like to know whether he reached any agreement on further sales of the Concorde, on sales of the Harrier, or on the subject of air traffic rights into Peking?

On the question of Hong Kong, I, too, greatly regret that I had an opportunity for only a brief talk with the Governor, although I was in Hong Kong as recently as December and spent some time there talking over mutual problems.

In my right hon. Friend's conversations with Chinese and Japanese leaders did he discuss the general situation in Southern Africa and the possibility of concerting policies, for example, between Japan and this country towards that part of the world?

I discussed Southern Africa at some length in both China and Japan. In the case of China—I think that the greatest curiosity is about what the Chinese approach might be—it is fair to say that the discussions had a somewhat one-sided character. I explained the British position on Southern Africa at some length, but I did not receive an immensely long answer on what the Chinese attitude might be.

In the Government's formulation of foreign policy in Asia, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that China, with her resolute opposition to Soviet imperialism and with her purchases of British aerospace equipment, makes a better and more reliable ally for this country than the Indian Government, whose current affairs seem to revolve round opposition to the Concorde and a refusal to accept her responsibility for the Malawi Goans?

At this early stage in my career in a new position I am reluctant to make comments of an exceedingly global or philosophical character. I prefer to confine myself to saying that we welcome allies of all kinds in all parts of the world.

As the Opposition, at the time when the former Labour Government recognised China, were bitterly opposed to that step and as a substantial number of Opposition Members between 1950 and 1954 were prepared to wipe out China, does not my right hon. Friend think that it was fortunate that we did not follow their example, for otherwise we should never have got the invitation?

If I may say so, there is great wisdom and merit in my right hon. Friend's proposition.

During the right hon. Gentleman's visit, did he obtain any instructive or refreshing views from the Chinese on how they regard the bogus Russian interpretation of détente?

I shall not be inscrutable on this subject at all. I spent a considerable number of hours listening to the Chinese views on détente and on Soviet strength and intentions. As I said earlier—if I may be serious about this, because one or two exchanges today have been slightly less than serious—I made two matters clear the whole time. The first was that we accepted utterly and completely the need for the West to be strong in a military sense and vigilant against any possible Soviet threat. The second matter which I made clear was that, nevertheless, that did not mean that we could surrender the policy of détente, which has the command of the huge majority of hon. Members.

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

We hope that negotiations can soon be resumed with the aim of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

After all these months of governmental inactivity, in which the whole of the Middle East has been torn apart by violence, will the Minister contemplate taking positive action in conjunction with our EEC partners to support the fragile ceasefire?

We are certainly available to take any initiative or to participate in any initiative which seems to bring the prospect of peace to that troubled country. There is no future for the Lebanon in countries gratuitously mounting initiatives which only end in failure. If there seems to be a right moment for a greater EEC initiative, we shall be happy to take part in it. but it has to be the right moment.

The situation on the West Bank is now developing into a normal one where the native population is rebelling against the alien occupying Power. What are the Government doing with a view to getting Israeli withdrawal from this territory?

My hon. Friend will be aware of the draft resolution of the United Nations of 25th March and our attitude towards it, which was a clear indication of our position. Our opinion is that constant building in these areas will impede the progress towards peace, and we regret this.

Is not the Minister being rather complacent about British activity? Does not the situation on the West Bank highlight the fact that the Middle East is not static, and at any time can be explosive? Should not Britain and Europe be more active?

I understand the attitude that Britain should be more active in these matters, but that is a misunderstanding of Britain's rôle and the era in which we live. Initiatives for promoting a stable situation in the Middle East lie with the United States of America, which has had a great deal of success in the past. Counter-initiatives could only make the situation more perilous than it is.

Will the Minister seek to obtain a Community statement designed to warn the Israelis that another war in the Middle East is inevitable if they insist on constructing settlements in Arab-occupied territory? They should now gradually withdraw from Arab-occupied territory.

I have made my view on this matter very clear. I do not think that the purpose of peace in the Middle East would be best served by getting a co-ordinated EEC policy on that particular matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assistance of a defensive nature is being given to Zambia in order to protect her territorial integrity against possible attacks from Southern Rhodesia.

The Government are not providing assistance for this purpose. But we are in continual close touch with the Zambian Government about matters relating to Rhodesia and its effects on Zambia.

Bearing in mind that Ian Smith has made it perfectly clear that he intends to pursue the freedom fighters across the Zambian border, does not the Minister agree that it is morally right for us to supply arms to Zambia, either as aid or on favourable terms, in order to stand up morally on this issue and to avoid the Communist countries supplying the arms, as otherwise they will do? If this happens, we shall be faced with the criticism of allowing Communist influence to dominate.

We issue export licences to Zambia on a regular basis, and manufacturers are free to sell arms, subject to export licences.

Does any understanding exist between the two Governments about the British Government giving help to Zambia in the event of an incursion over her borders from the south?

We have no military guarantees between ourselves and Zambia, but we are keeping the situation under review.

Does the Minister remember that some time ago, when Zambia helped us—at some cost to herself—with the sanctions policy by closing her trading links with the South, the British Government provided some assistance to that country? Would the Government investigate whether there has been any question from the Zambian Government about further assistance?

We have not received any requests for specific military aid.

What assistance of a military nature is being given to the Rhodesians in order to protect them from terrorist incursions from Zambia and Mozambique?

We have no intention of giving any military assistance to an illegal regime.

Ignoring the element of fantasy in both the question and the answer, will the Government accept that the people of Britain, certainly in my constituency, are not prepared to see the people of Rhodesia sold down the river to terrorism?

The Government are not prepared to see the vast majority of Rhodesian citizens, black and white, sold down the river to any minority regime with the support of hon. Members opposite.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations as a threat to world peace the genocide taking place in Cambodia.

While I, too, have read with great concern the recent reports of events in Cambodia, I do not think they constitute a threat to world peace. Nor, I should add, have I any means of verifying the truth of the allegations that have been made.

If someone were condemned to death in South Africa, Chile or Spain, the Government would soon protest. In Cambodia half a million people have been condemned to death—according to reports, everyone who is over the age of 12 and educated either has been or will be liquidated. Why are the Government not making any protest? Why are there these double standards?

First, we would consider making diplomatic representations if we had any diplomatic representatives in Cambodia. Secondly, any protest we made would depend on the effectiveness of such representations. The limited evidence we have suggests that such representations would be nothing but counterproductive.

The present situation in Cambodia results directly from the appalling bombing and the invasion of that country by the United States, against which hon. Members opposite never raised the protest of genocide. It would have been better to have supported the original Government of Prince Sihanouk. This proves that support for reaction does not always pay.

The situation is tragic now, as it was in the past.

In order to avoid the charge of double standards, will the Government make every effort to find out what is happening? If the stories are justified, will they make strenuous protests?

We have limited means of finding out what is happening. A lot of information is provided by refugees fleeing across the border. This does not mean that we are not deeply concerned about the evidence. But the form of any representation and the effective result, if any, are what we must consider, and we feel that in this case such representations would be counter-productive.

But will the Government make every effort to find out?

Of course we are continually trying to find out information of this kind, whatever country is involved

If the Government discover that the stories are true and that over half a million people have died during the past 12 months, out of a population of over 8 million, will they make sure that steps are taken in the United Nations to raise the matter and, at the very least, will they withdraw our representation in Cambodia?

We cannot withdraw representation which we have not got.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

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

Her Majesty's Government actively support Dr. Waldheim's efforts to promote substantive negotiations between the Cyprus communities. They are the fora from which progress is most likely. Today the Select Committee on Cyprus publishes its report. The Government will formally comment upon it in the usual way. However, in the light of the report's contents, the House would expect a general reaction now. The Government regret that the Committee did not take the opportunity to make an impartial and constructive contribution to solving the Cyprus problem. The Committee ignored evidence demonstrating that military intervention in Cyprus was neither right nor possible. The report offers no evidence to show that the Committee's favoured strategy of isolating Turkey internationally would promote a solution. The Government of course accept the view that we should do all we can to achieve a solution. That is, and always has been, our policy.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the all-party report bears out what many of us have been saying, namely, that Government policy in this area has been badly misjudged, and that it also brings into question the judgment of the Prime Minister? Will he look carefully at the colonisation of northern Cyprus, bearing in mind that about 35,000 Turks have been introduced from the mainland to Cyprus at a time when the Greek Cypriot community in the north has been reduced to about 8,000?

I am conscious of the report and I spent my lunch time reading it. I also had the benefit of hearing the comments leaked on the radio at 8 o'clock this morning. The report contains a set of conclusions with which I disagree, and they are based on a number of facts which seem to me not to stand examination.

The House will be in some difficulty. As my right hon. Friend may have read the report more carefully than others have done, will he convey to his right hon. Friend that his welcome translation to the Foreign Office gives him a real opportunity, whatever may have happened in the past, for a new British initiative, both through European institutions and through the coming Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, to settle the Cyprus problem in a wider context, since clearly the present inter-communal talks have failed? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his tetchy comments on this report will not help in any way to get a real solution to this problem?

I always accept my hon. Friend's strictures, and I take it from him that the object of the report, of which he is a part author, was to contribute to the future rather than to dwell in a maudlin fashion on the past. He can be assured that my right hon. Friend will continue the Government's policy of trying to promote a solution to the Cyprus situation. My judgment of the report is that the idea that a solution can be brought about by isolating Turkey and relegating her to a situation of international isolation is not only wrong but diametrically wrong.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us on this side of the House, and, I hope, on the other side too, will welcome his initial reaction to this report, which takes no account whatsoever of the persecution of the Turkish minority in Cyprus between 1960 and 1974? Will he confirm that in his view and in the view of the Government we should not reappoint the Select Committee if it is going to continue to produce reports that are as utterly biased as this one?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Much as I am grateful for the first part of his question, I can hardly endorse the second part. It is a matter for the House what it does in terms of appointing Select Committees. It is a matter for Select Committees what they write. They are free to write and say what they want, so long as it is agreed that I am free to write and say what I conclude about their recommendations.

The contents of the Select Committee's report apart, I plead with my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State to put some new private and public initiative behind the drive to find a solution to the problem on this tragic island, which is of great concern. Will he assure the House that every possible step is being taken to encourage a successful outcome of the inter-communal talks as speedily as possible?

I am well aware of my hon. Friend's interest in these matters. We have had a number of conversations about them. I hope that I have done something to convince him, but, if not, let me reiterate that the Government will bend all their efforts to bring about a solution to this wholly tragic situation, which no one doubts has gone on for an intolerably long time. We have done our best within the EEC through private initiatives and through other fora, and we have done so in the belief that making progress is more important than making declarations. I know that that view is shared by my hon. Friend, and we shall go on operating in that way, because that seems the practical and right way to proceed.

I have not had a chance to read the report and therefore cannot comment on its substance. In view of the unusually terse remarks of the right hon. Gentleman about the report, may we assume that there will be an early debate on it in the House? This is of great importance. We support the view that, whatever the past may have contained, the future and the present are important, and new initiatives of any kind that might produce results will be welcomed by the Opposition.

The question of a debate is not for me but for the Leader of the House. I should welcome a debate, not in terms of clarifying facts or correcting statements relating to this House and to the performance of the Government, but simply to ensure that any damage which may have been done in terms of the Government's initiative is corrected so that world opinion realises what the Government's attitude is to the report and that the report does not speak for the Government.

How can we expect a balanced report if we do not set up a balanced Committee? Is it not the responsibility of the House to ensure that any future Committee is far more balanced than this was?

It is not for me to comment on the composition of Committees, although it is my duty to comment on their conclusions.

In view of the Minister's sanctimonious comments on how the report was leaked on the early morning radio, may I ask whether he is aware that his statement to the House a few moments ago was leaked on the one o'clock news, only two hours ago? Can the Government ever get away from double standards?

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an authority on these matters, but today he has got it wrong. As is well known, some amorphous being known as a "spokesman" speaks on behalf of the Foreign Office each morning. By an extraordinary coincidence, he said something that was about the same as my answer, though not identical to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest developments regarding the fisheries dispute with Iceland.

Yes, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food told the House on 6th May, we were compelled, in the face of greatly increased harassment by the Icelandic coastguard, to raise the level of the forces protecting our trawlers fishing off Iceland. Her Majesty's Government continue to seek a negotiated settlement of the dispute and I intend to discuss this matter with my NATO colleagues at tomorrow's Council meeting of the Alliance in Oslo.

As the future of the fishing industry is being re-examined in the light of the Law of the Sea Conference and of the Common Market negotiations, and as Iceland has a critical rôle to play in terms of the NATO defence of the northern flank, will the Minister now seek a major diplomatic effort, with the help if necessary of the nations that are friendly to both sides in this dispute, to resolve this matter, which is mutually destructive?

I agree that the dispute is mutually destructive. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the NATO northern flank and other points to which he alluded. In turn, I must allude to the crucial importance of this matter to the British fishing industry. I should like above anything else to achieve a settlement of this dispute in which there would be no victory and no defeat, but in which both sides could come out with a reasonable and honourable settlement.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of how much all those in fishing ports, particularly workers in the deep sea fleet, welcome the fact that he is to visit Oslo tomorrow? Will he try to meet the Icelandic Minister who is his opposite number and even, with luck, Prime Minister Hallgrimsson? Secondly, there is talk in the fishing ports of the Icelanders having some offer to make. Can my right hon. Friend say what evidence there is for this idea circulating in Hull, Grimsby and elsewhere? Is there any substance in this story?

I should be willing to meet the Icelandic Foreign Minister in Oslo at any time during the conference. No doubt there are reports circulating in the fishing ports, but I prefer not to comment on that now.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that fishery protection vessels are permitting catches up to voluntarily agreed quotas of fish and that it is therefore futile from the points of view of both Iceland and this country to continue the dispute? Will he do his best to end it as soon as possible?

During the last week many trawlers have returned to the designated fishing area and fishing has been at a better rate than it was previously. Subject to one serious incident affecting the "Primella", the amount of harassment has been minimal. If we take the six months from November to May, which are not the best six months for fishing, we see that more fish was caught by British trawlers off Iceland than in the corresponding six months of the previous year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his visit to Oslo, but we are concerned not only with a settlement of the dispute but with working out a proper fishing policy for this country so that we know what is to happen on investment, infrastructure, decasualisation and other matters? Is he aware that while we hope he will get a settlement with Iceland, he and other Ministers should be looking towards the long-term interests of the British fishing industry?

I very strongly agree with my hon. Friend. It is quite wrong to look at the Icelandic dispute in isolation. It must be seen in the context of the many dramatic changes affecting the industry, and any settlement must be part of a Government statement on a total strategy for the future.

How much money has been costed to the British taxpayer as a result of damage done to Her Majesty's ships in the course of the dispute?

I should be obliged if the hon. and learned Member would put that question to the Secretary of State for Defence.

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

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

I met the other EEC Foreign Ministers at an informal meeting in Luxembourg last Friday and Saturday and expect to meet them again at the Council of Ministers in Brussels on 31st May and 1st June.

Are we allowed to know a little more about what was said at that meeting? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several news bulletins on Sunday said that among the items on the agenda was consideration of what steps Ministers could take to prevent the further disintegration of the Community? Was that so?

No, that was not so. As I am rather new to my present post, I have to read my brief occasionally. I am instructed that the discussions in Luxembourg, like similar discussions with the Foreign Ministers of any country, are traditionally confidential.

Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the other Foreign Ministers when he next meets them to the vast quantities of EEC motor vehicles coming into this country? Is he aware that they had over 22 per cent. penetration of the British market in the first three months of this year? Will he take steps to have this figure cut back, besides exhorting our own people to buy British in order to keep themselves in employment?

That would be a very interesting matter to discuss. In another context I was discussing it in relation to Japanese motor vehicle exports when I was in Japan. I feel very strongly that, at the end of the day, there is only one solution to this problem and that is for the British motor industry to pull its socks up.

Will the Foreign Secretary be taking up with his colleagues in the EEC the question of Greek membership of the Community? Is it his policy to promote the earliest possible membership of Greece? Is he satisfied that there will be no dragging of feet by the Commission in this matter?

It is certainly the British Government's policy to promote Greece's entry into the Community. This matter was not discussed in detail last week-end, but I have no doubt that it will be raised at the next Council of Ministers' meeting at the end of May or beginning of June.

Will my right hon. Friend take up with the other Foreign Ministers the question of bribery and corruption between various multinational companies, Common Market countries and politicians in those countries? Is he aware that a Treasury Minister said yesterday that we could not go it alone in this matter? We were told that one of the reasons why we should join the Common Market was that there could be harmonisation. Why do we not have some harmonisation on this—

Order. Let us have some harmonisation.

As I have frequently said, I am against harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. I was not aware that a Treasury Minister gave my hon. Friend a reply yesterday, but I am absolutely sure that it was wise, discreet and generally statesmanlike.

May I ask the Foreign Secretary a very simple question? When he next meets his EEC colleagues, will he discuss the impossible idea that a 12-mile limit would do for the inshore fishing industry in Great Britain?

The hon. Lady need not lecture me on the fishing industry. If there is one European subject I do understand it is the importance of an agreement on a common fisheries policy. I shall certainly bear in mind and underline the hon. Lady's remarks, with which I strongly agree.

Following the meeting in Luxembourg last week there were optimistic reports in the Press about the possibility of meeting the target date for direct elections. Can my right lion. Friend say whether there was any justification for those reports?

The discussions were not so much concerned with the date and method of direct elections as with the constitution of the Parliament. We spent many hours discussing the constitution and, although there was not agreement, we narrowed down the range of options we thought were open to us. This is a critical and controversial matter and it still remains to be decided.

asked Would the Foreign Secretary accept that one of the plans which seems to have been discussed and which would keep the existing size of the Parliament, and therefore the 36 seats for the United Kingdom, would be very hard for this House to accept? Is he aware that such a plan would make it almost impossible to secure fair representation for the different parts of the United Kingdom?

I am extremely conscious of that fact.

asked In his discussions last week, did my right hon. Friend have time to pause and comment on the statement of M. Lardinois about the impossibility of getting a common fisheries policy and the difficulty of getting any sort of agreement through the national Parliaments? Did he therefore tell his colleagues that, if we cannot have a sensible policy to protect our industry, the Government will have to take unilateral action to ensure that the interests of our fishermen are properly protected?

I would never say anything as provocative as my hon. Friend suggested, but I dropped a number of hints suggesting that, as far as I was concerned, the common fisheries policy had an exceptionally high priority.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations, directives and decisions have been adopted by the EEC Council of Ministers and Commission, respectively, in 1976 to date.

The Official Journal of the European Communities lists all such items. In 1976, up to and including Official Journal Number L113 of 30th April, the Council has adopted 115 regulations, 18 directives and 30 decisions; and the Commission has adopted 876 regulations, five directives and 862 decisions.

Does my right hon. Friend think it is a reputable form of legislation that hundreds of Orders should be imposed on this country without the House having the opportunity even to discuss and take decisions on them, as we can with our own Statutory Instruments?

Many of the decisions I have described would not be regarded as legislation if they were taken by national Governments. They are administrative acts, mainly concerned with regulating the agricultural market in a minute, day-to-day way. I understand my right hon. Friend's feeling that this is unsatisfactory, but I am sure that he will agree that we live in an unsatisfactory parliamentary world. I have discovered that in the same period 666 Statutory Instruments were approved by this House and we debated only 36 of them.

asked How many of these directives and regulations were concerned with the control of imports? Would the same generosity be shown to Great Britain as has been shown to Italy, which has introduced what amounts to import controls?

asked There is no question but that, if the United Kingdom economy were in the same condition as that of Italy and we made application under the same article of the Treaty as did Italy, we should receive the same sort of sympathy from our colleagues in the Community. I cannot tell my hon. Friend offhand how many of the decisions were related to import controls, although some specific items were so related, including one concerning the import of frozen fish. That was made lawful a few weeks ago in order to help our industry, and the Commission is aware of it.

On the question of the Commissioners working in the Commission and putting forward all these regulations, what is the present constitutional position of Mr. Spinelli, who is a candidate on the Communist slate and a Commissioner? Is he still allowed to work in the Commission as a declared member of the Communist slate?

I need notice of that question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in relation to the Common Market is that certain member Governments bend the rules, and that sometimes we are put at a disadvantage because we play the game of cricket? Is it not time that we began an examination of precisely how they bend the rules and how that affects us in this country?

I did not think that playing or watching the game of cricket was a disadvantage, but I must tell my hon. Friend that I have some sympathy with his view. It is not only in the EEC that it is the habit of the British Government to adhere strictly to the letter and terms of laws and conventions. That puts us at a disadvantage compared with some other countries, which I shall not name and which feel more relaxed about their international obligations. I believe, however, that it is in the interests of our reputation in the world as a whole that we continue to accept the letter and spirit of the treaties into which we have entered. I am sure that that is what we must continue to do.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reactions to the proposals contained in the Tindemans Report.

The Government have not yet reached any final conclusions on the proposals in the Tindemans Report. Generally, however, we regard it as a constructive basis for discussion of the future of the Community, even though we can by no means accept everything in it. We shall of course wish to take full account of the views of the House in formulating our position.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we and our Common Market partners would do better to concentrate our efforts on putting right those things which have been going wrong in the common agricultural policy and elsewhere rather than trying to impose a federal superstructure on what are increasingly shaky foundations?

If I thought that that was being proposed, I should strongly agree with my hon. Friend. However, to be fair to Mr. Tindemans, to whom I have now talked twice in the past five days, he makes it clear at the beginning of his report—this is just one reason why it is a good report, if I may say so—that he sees no purpose in pursuing at this stage the argument between the federalists and the anti-federalists. Therefore, the whole premise of the report is that that argument, for the moment, is futile and that the only sensible thing to do is to build on the institutions that we have and to try to make them work better.

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that his predecessor, who is now Prime Minister, gave an undertaking some time ago that the House would have the opportunity of debating the Tindemans Report. Will he assure the House that before it does so the Government will table a document, be it a White Paper or whatever, which sets out their view on the Tindemans Report, so that we may debate not merely the report but the Government's positive response to it?

That is a very interesting suggestion which I shall consider very seriously. Obviously, I cannot give a commitment this afternoon.

My right hon. Friend has reminded the House that the report's foreword regards the federalist and non-federalist argument as sterile. Does he agree that the whole tone and aspirations of the Tindemans Report are distinctly federalist? Does he agree with what was said by the Prime Minister when he was Foreign Secretary in a speech at the Ubersee Club in Hamburg—namely, that we need to emphasise the truly international nature of the Community, not its supranational characteristic, which is causing all the problems at the moment?

asked I cannot accept the first part of my hon. Friend's question, which, with respect to him, would not stand up to a careful reading of the report. However, I strongly agree with what he said in the second part. I think that he would find that Mr. Tindemans would go far in agreeing with him on that.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Tindemans Report specifically mentions the desirability of a concerted or common European response to some of the problems of the Third World and some of the demands made by it, for instance, at UNCTAD IV? Does he agree that the total diversity and lack of unity in the response of the European Community countries at UNCTAD is a disadvantage to us all and emphasises the need for progress in this area?

It is early to comment on what the final outcome of UNCTAD IV will be, though I agree that there have been some depressing signs. However, on the hon. Gentleman's major point, I made it clear to Mr. Tindemans that the United Kingdom Government strongly agreed with his proposition that one of the four priority areas for political cooperation—co-operation in foreign policy —should be North-South relations, or relations between the richer countries and the developing world.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that on the last occasion that he answered Questions in the House he expressed his support for the view that one of the most important things that the Commission could do would be to concert its foreign policy. That is one of the most important features of the Tindemans Report. Will he give us an assurance that pending his statement on the Government's definitive views on the report, he is personally paying attention to some of the important foreign policy problems that are faced by Europe, such as Yugoslavia and Spain, and encouraging the Community to take a concerted view towards these problems?

Yes, I think that I can give that assurance in general terms—[Interruption.] I say "in general terms" for a perfectly practical reason that the hon. Gentleman will understand, he having been in the Foreign Office. At the moment my Department appears to allow me virtually no time in this country. The amount of time for thinking in serious depth about problems is somewhat limited, but subject to that, yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made by the Council of Ministers on preparations for direct elections to the European Parliament prior to the next European Council meeting.

Foreign Ministers discussed direct elections at the Council of Ministers meeting on 3rd and 4th May and at their informal meeting in Luxembourg on 14th and 15th May. These discussions have been useful in clarifying the different positions of member States but have not yet led to agreement on outstanding points.

How confident is the Minister that the July summit will conclude all the principal decisions on this subject?

I cannot be confident about that, but I hope that colleagues in the Community will understand the needs of a variety of interests and will come to some conclusion which is acceptable to all members. I am also confident that the House of Commons will want to move with the Government side by side, and will give its advice in sufficient time to enable us to incorporate its wishes into our eventual position.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the EEC legislation was going through the House, we were assured that the Government would always have the right to veto any proposal with which they did not agree? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that on this issue the Government will not be weak-kneed, and that if they cannot get what they have told the House they would like they will exercise the veto that we were told they would not hesitate to use?

There is no question but that what has been called the veto still exists for essential national interests and that it will be preserved. My right hon. Friend may rest assured that the Government have a lively appreciation of what is necessary for British interests in these matters and will not be budged by advocacy from that position.

As the Government have already said that they cannot—despite our long history of democratic elections—agree to some form of direct elections to the European Parliament by 1978, how is it that the same Government are urging Mr. Smith to organise majority rule in two years?

The second part of the question is irrelevant. The first part is a diametrically wrong statement of the Government's position.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best course for right hon. and hon. Members who are worried about the stream of directives and other matters from the Commission is to put their backs behind the drive to get direct elections for a directly-elected European Parliament?

asked I am sure that that is right. I am sure that the numbers which I have quoted today will not be quoted on a future occasion when a Parliament is directly elected. However, two provisos must follow. First, the new Parliament would not have powers in excess of what the present Parliament possesses. Therefore, a good deal of work would remain in present institutions. In fact, much of the work that I described in answer to an earlier Question is not legislation but administration. We would not expect to weary the Parliament with that.

Does not the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) reveal his federal intentions in the ultimate? Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many options are being discussed about the numbers to go to the directly-elected European Assembly, which countries are saying what and who is objecting to what? Are we to know about those matters?

I cannot say whether my hon. Friend's question revealed his enthusiasm for greater powers for the European Parliament, but my answer revealed that the Government do not share any such enthusiasm. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be comforted by that reply.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widest possible consultation should take place? Is he aware that the Labour Party has not yet decided on its attitude towards direct elections? The matter will have to come before the Labour Party conference. Will he therefore assure the House that the views of the Labour Party conference will be taken into the fullest consideration prior to any firm commitment one way or the other on the part of the Government?

asked My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already explained that we are most anxious to take advice from all parties. Naturally, those of us who have long-standing membership of the Labour Party are particularly enthusiastic to hear the Labour Party's views. A number of letters have gone to my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the National Executive asking for their opinions. We shall do our best to take those opinions within the proper time scale. However, my hon. Friend will understand that, as the Prime Minister said, the programme of the European Community requires us to act swiftly in the national interest. I am sure that that is what the Labour Party would expect us to do.