asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet the South African Foreign Minister.

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

When the Foreign Secretary meets the South African Foreign Minister, on behalf of the nation, will he apologise for the gross misreporting in The Guardian last month about the activities of the South African Embassy in this country, culminating in The Guardian and the BBC talking about the activities of the gallant Colonel Cheeseman?

We have no responsibility for what the Press prints about any aspects of this problem.

When the Foreign Secretary meets his opposite number in South Africa, will he explain Her Majesty's Government's total opposition to the Bantustan policy of that country and ask when South Africa intends to give up the illegal occupation of Namibia?

We have no plans for such a meeting. Therefore it is surely unproductive to discuss a hypothetical agenda for a hypothetical meeting. Our future policies on the Bantustans and Namibia have already been made clear to the South African Government.

Has the Foreign Office yet received the dossier promised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose), bearing in mind that weeks ago it was reported on the radio that it would be ready within three days?

Yes, we have received information submitted to the Department by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Italy.

I have no plans to do so at present.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that grave security problems may arise in NATO in the event of Communists coming to power in Italy? What contingency plans do we have to cope with such an eventuality?

I have never thought that there was any advantage to this country, or indeed to anybody, in discussing in advance of the Italian election either what the outcome will be or what we will do on certain hypothetical assumptions. It is right that the Italian people should choose their own Government, and we have no idea what the outcome of the election will be. It seems to be absolutely wrong that we should engage in a public discussion as to what we might do on certain contingency assumptions.

Does my right hon. Friend share the belief that Dr. Kissinger's well-known fears on this subject are exaggerated, because when the United States has any military secrets it does not entrust them to NATO? Does he agree that that is the case?

My own view is that there are many other methods by which secrets emerge to hostile Powers besides the one that we are now considering.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the situation in Italy shows that nations should have adequate social reforms, and that if a nation is dominated by one party for too long it leads to this kind of situation? Does he agree that NATO should take greater care to ensure that there is uniform economic development as far as possible within member nations?

I am in favour of one-party domination, provided that it is allied to social reform.

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

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

The situation continues to give cause for grave concern and the prospects for a negotiated settlement without further bloodshed are obviously receding. But I have not given up hope that the European minority will accept the realities of the situation and the need to negotiate in good faith with the African nationalists on the basis outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his statement of 22nd March. I strongly urge them to do so before it is too late.

Will the Foreign Secretary endorse what was said by Sir Harry Oppenheimer, who knows a great deal about these matters, to the effect that parliamentary government is better than a majority rule which leads to dictatorship? Will the Government keep this in mind in their efforts to reach a sound constitutional settlement in Rhodesia and in any advice given to Dr. Kissinger or to anybody else who is trying to help.

The realities of the situation and also the morality of the situation demand that the principle of majority rule should be conceded, and should be conceded quickly. The plain fact is that if it is not conceded the prospect for peace in Southern Africa is desperately bleak.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent report of the so-called presidential commission on racial discrimination in Rhodesia has come at least 10 years too late and that even if implemented in full it would rightly be regarded by black Rhodesians as simply window dressing, and that the only conceivable solution for that country is the immediate implementation of majority rule?

I think the report is irrelevant to the present realities of the situation, which are only too horribly clear, and will be clear to the House as a whole. If the principle of majority rule is not conceded, the guerrilla warfare will escalate, the nationalist guerrillas will seek support from outside Africa, and will turn first for that support towards Cuba and the Soviet Union. If that occurs, the United States will intervene on the other side, and the prospects of the most bloody conflagration in Southern Africa will be really desperate.

Would it not be useful if the Foreign Secretary, or even the Prime Minister, were to seek a meeting with Mr. Vorster, the South African Prime Minister, who will be in Europe next week for a discussion about Rhodesia, bearing in mind that our two countries share a common interest in ensuring that constitutional progress there is made by peaceful means?

There has been a Question on the Order Paper on that subject already, but perhaps I could tell the hon. Member that I shall be seeing Dr. Kissinger both on Monday, before he meets Mr. Vorster, and on Friday, after he has met Mr. Vorster. Therefore, we shall certainly have a very close and detailed impression of what occurred at that meeting.

When my right hon. Friend speaks to Dr. Kissinger, will he point out to him that the illegal régime in Rhodesia is being sustained because of the fact that South Africa is trading with Rhodesia, and that if tomorrow South Africa stopped trading the illegal régime would collapse?

I think I should be mainly concerned, at the meeting with Dr. Kissinger, to discover whether there is any shift in the South African position and to try to discover what is now the attitude of the South Africans in this extraordinarily tricky situation.

The Foreign Secretary very rightly stressed the extreme gravity of the situation, but is he really content, as British Foreign Secretary, to leave any new initiative at the present moment to Dr. Kissinger?

As I have told the House before, the British Government's stand on the position was outlined to the House by my right hon. Friend, now Prime Minister, on 22nd March, and until the preconditions laid down in my right hon. Friend's statement are met we do not believe that there would be any sense in starting a new programme of negotiation.

Since the growing war of attrition in Rhodesia is fundamentally against the interest of Rhodesians and the West, may I welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd and ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has noted that it is reported on British television this week that Mr. Todd has suggested that a peaceful solution in Rhodesia requires the active encouragement of the Western world, led by Britain? How does the Foreign Secretary respond to that?

Like the hon. Gentleman, I greatly welcome the release of Mr. Garfield Todd. I noted the statement, but nevertheless it remains the conviction of the British Government that, until there is some clear sign of major movement on the part of the white Rhodesian régime, to start a new process or a new programme of negotiation would be a total waste of time.

Is it not a fact that there is no denying that responsibility for the growing conflict in Rhodesia rests entirely with the illegal Smith régime, and that everything possible should be done, including encouraging South Africa not to give military help or to trade, if there is to be any move at all towards a peaceful solution?

I broadly accept that. I think that the primary and essential responsibility for the present situation lies on the white régime in Rhodesia. As I said before, until there is some sign of a major change of policy and direction on the part of that régime, I think that a new round of endless negotiations would be fruitless.

While accepting the principle of majority rule, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he realises that by laying down a timetable of two years he is going exactly the opposite way? Does he not realise that the rapid transfer of power would immediately lead to a civil war between the Mashona and the Matabele?

The two years refers to two things—first, the acceptance of the principle of majority rule and, second, elections for majority rule to be held within the two-year period.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to have in the near future about the prevention of nuclear proliferation with his counterparts in those countries which would be capable of exporting nuclear equipment.

Her Majesty's Government have over the last two years or so pursued an active nuclear non-proliferation policy, part of which relates to the export of nuclear equipment. As my right hon. Friend made clear on 31st March, this involves consultations with other Governments. This policy remains in force and the consultations will continue.

Are the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the Government aware that many of us on all sides of the House have a deep concern about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and would like to see the Government pressing for at least two important objectives—first, a total ban on the export of nuclear reprocessing technology, and, secondly, adequate international storage facilities, under strict control, for spent nuclear fuel?

The concern of the hon. Gentleman is shared, I am sure, by the whole House, including Her Majesty's Government, but at this stage it has been agreed by those participating in the discussions that progress can best be made on all these issues, important as they are, if confidentiality in the discussions is at present maintained.

Will the Government take a determined initiative in trying to bring together all the countries that are involved in the sale of arms, both nuclear and conventional, with a view to trying to get a reduction and control of this rapidly growing field of commerce—and a horrific field it is—which is causing so much misery, especially in the Third World countries?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that Her Majesty's Government are playing a full part in all the disarmament negotiations, and we wish to see these negotiations completed on a proper multilateral basis.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's original statement, but does he not think that it will add to our credibility in any discussions we undertake if we have a more consistent policy ourselves in regard to the import of nuclear reprocessing fuels?

I take note of the question. I do not think there is any conflict in Her Majesty's Government's policy as it stands at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now make a further statement on steps being taken to curb the involvement of British mercenaries in Rhodesia.

For the present, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State told my hon. Friend on 5th and 17th May.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the apparent inaction in this area—although there are promises of action—is causing great concern in the House? Will he at least at this stage make quite clear to the House and the country in what sort of offences Britons who take up service with Rhodesian forces could be involved?

I cannot accept that, unless my hon. Friend is willing to define more closely what he means by "inaction". Perfectly clear sanctions have been laid down concerning Rhodesian recruitment, under the Rhodesia sanctions legislation. There was some discussion in the House last night on whether there was a loophole in this matter. This is under very close study in the Department. But I cannot accept that there is inaction. The Director of Public Prosecutions conducted four successful prosecutions in 1974, for example, against magazines which, possibly through ignorance, carried advertisements encouraging immigration into Rhodesia.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that under British law—except in the rather special circumstances laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act—and under international law, it is not a crime to be a mercenary, as such? At a time when British subjects are on trial for their lives because, in a certain country, it is said to be an offence, would it not be bad for the law in this country to be changed?

The hon. Gentleman refers to mercenaries in another country. About them, obviously, the less said at this stage the better. I can confirm that although in that case they went out against the strong advice of Her Majesty's Government, as the House knows, under British law it is not a crime to be a mercenary. But there is nothing in British law to stop anyone leaving the country, with or without a passport.

In view of the fact that some people who may be recruited for service under the illegal régime in Rhodesia could be sent out by the same agencies that sent these unfortunate and misguided men to Angola, ought not my right hon. Friend to say something about the procedures that allow these people to send men out there—a matter that has been raised in their trial?

I have examined these procedures closely, and there is no doubt that, as the law now stands, nothing incorrect occurred. In other words, they were not allowed out in some fashion suggesting complicity on the part of Her Majesty's Government. Far from that, they went out against the advice of the Government. But nothing incorrect occurred, because, under British law, anyone can leave the country, with or without a passport.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome his firm reassertion of the right of an individual British citizen to leave the country if he so wishes, and that we also welcome his clear distinction between serving as a so-called mercenary or volunteer and committing war crimes in the course of that service?

Perhaps I might make it clear that there is one exception to the right of anyone to leave the country, with or without a passport, namely, if a person is suspected of having committed criminal offences. In the case that is in the minds of many right hon. and hon. Members, a number of those who wished to leave the country were prevented from doing so by the police because they were wanted for or suspected of criminal offences.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give consideration to taking a new initiative in relation to the Israeli-Arab dispute.

As I said on 19th May, we hope that negotiations can soon be resumed with the aim of achieving a just and lasting peace in the Middle East. I do not think that this aim would be best served by a new British initiative at this point. We shall, however, continue to watch the situation carefully.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the main lessons to be learned from the tragic and horrid events in the Lebanon is that there will be no settlement but, rather, continuing instability, bloodshed and war until the rights of the Palestinians and the question of Palestinian statehood are resolved? They cannot be resolved without a peace settlement. Do not the Government intend to do something more active to try to break the present deadlock?

The hon. Gentleman's question fell into two parts. On the first part, I agree substantially that there needs to be a recognition of the special problems of the Palestinians and an understanding that they must be accommodated within any lasting settlement.

Despite the basis of the previous question, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the issue in the Lebanon is about the rolling forces of the Syrians and that it has less to do with the immediate circumstances associated with the Palestinians? This matter must be dealt with, but I think that we are confusing the issue.

The situation in the Lebanon has been caused by forces which are far too complex to be described in answer to a supplementary question. They are partly historical and partly geographical, but certainly an element in them is the one referred to in the first supplementary question. Our hope now is that this long unresolved problem, part of which concerns the exploitation of one community by another, can be solved in a way that brings peace to that presently unhappy country and brings the tragedy to a swift end.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the current stage of the siege of Beirut indicates that there may soon be immediate problems of starvation and disease in that city? Will he consider, in co-operation with the European Powers, making certain contingency plans for swift relief and humanitarian action to ensure that both British subjects and the Lebanese people have, from the European end, some assistance in the tragedy, which may well become even worse?

Many citizens of Beirut are already suffering considerable deprivation, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the situation may well deteriorate. I assure him and the House that Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of this and are prepared to help as best we can if the situation deteriorates substantially.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Arab nations are deeply disappointed about the supine attitude of the British Foreign Office towards the Middle East crisis? The fact that, apparently, our policy in the past has been step by step behind Dr. Kissinger may now lose its validity completely as Dr. Kissinger may take his final step out of office.

I do not think that a policy based on our wish to do what we can as long as that is practical and right is properly to be described as "supine". I reiterate what I said earlier. There is a tendency to believe that any initiative is better than no initiative. I do not share that view.

Since the construction of Jewish settlements in Arab-occupied territory, quite contrary to United Nations resolutions, is likely to provoke even further conflict in the Middle East, and in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly endorsed this view, what is he doing to ensure that the Israeli Government are aware of the views of both the British Government and the European Community?

That view is generally shared by our colleagues in the EEC, and we are making it very clear to the Israeli Government. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) enables me to do it at almost every Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement with the Soviet Ambassador.

My right hon. Friend has not yet had an opportunity to discuss this subject with the Soviet Ambassador. It is, however, a topic that he has very much in mind. The Soviet Ambassador is calling on him later this afternoon and their discussion is likely to include CSCE implementation.

When the Minister's right hon. Friend speaks to the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon will he make it clear that the review conference at Belgrade next year must include not just consideration of proposals for future co-operation but a detailed scrutiny of the way in which the various signatories to the Helsinki Agreement have or have not carried out that agreement? Will he make it clear that Belgrade must not be just a meeting of civil servants but must be conducted at a high political level?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend heard what the hon. Member said. The review conference is more than a year away and it is too early to have any details in terms of our formal negotiating position. The progress achieved by the participating States in the intervening period clearly will be an important factor affecting our thinking.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread anxiety in a number of countries, caused by the concept attributed to Dr. Kissinger's aide, Mr. Sohnenfeldt, of the organic relation between the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union? Whether this concept was rightly or wrongly attributed, it has been very widespread. Will the Foreign Secretary make it quite clear that we have no part in any such concept?

It is our understanding that this was totally wrongly attributed.

At the review conference in Belgrade, is the Minister prepared to enter discussions on freedom of travel from Eastern European countries? I have a constituent who wants to marry a Romanian subject. That person wants to come here after the marriage but has been refused permission to leave Romania. This has caused great distress. In view of the fact that the Soviet Union has tremendous influence with the rest of the Communist countries in Eastern Europe, this matter of free travel should be fully explored and brought home to them very clearly.

I am sure that the Government share my hon. Friend's concern about freedom of travel. If he will let me have the details of this particular case, we shall look into it.

In spite of the Helsinki Agreement, the Soviet Union continues to make clear that détente is no bar to their efforts to overthrow the Western way of life, legally or illegally, peacefully or by non-peaceful means. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the Soviet Ambassador that this is not acceptable?

There would be differences of view about some of the definitions of détente. The Soviet Government have taken steps in a number of fields to apply the principles of the Helsinki Agreement and a note outlining the actions they have taken towards implementation of the Final Act appeared in Hansard on 10th March. There has since been a Soviet notification of a second military manoeuvre. However, we are mistaken if we have expectations of achieving success in every area of the Helsinki Agreement. What we have to do in future talks between the participating countries is to try to consolidate what has been achieved.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the implementation of the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement.

I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the answer on this point given by my right hon. Friend on 10th March. We shall not be satisfied until all the points in the Final Act are being met by all signatories. Some progress is being made to adjust existing practices to the provisions of the Final Act. But any proper assessment must wait until the 1977 review meeting.

Will the Minister congratulate the producers of the Granada "World in Action" film which was smuggled out of the Soviet Union and shown on television on Monday night? This film revealed in the clearest terms the callous way in which the Soviet Union is disregarding the Final Act, particularly in relation to its Jewish minority. When the Foreign Secretary sees the Soviet Ambassador this afternoon, will he please convey the anxiety felt on all sides of the House in connection with this ill treatment?

I note what my hon. and learned Friend said in relation to the "World in Action" film. The Final Act of the conference does provide for freer movement of individuals and families for short visits and settlement. I quote from a passage in a speech by the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir Harold Wilson) on 30th July 1975. He said:

"I hope that what we have each committed ourselves to in Europe can apply to those within our own countries who want to start a new life outside Europe, whether it be in the Middle East or elsewhere."

Long before the Helsinki Conference concluded, the Inter-Parliamentary Union held a conference in Helsinki, over which I presided. In less than five days that conference produced an agreement as comprehensive as the latest formal agreement of the Helsinki Conference on European security. In view of that fact, would it not be cheaper and more satisfactory to allow such conferences in future to be conducted by the Inter-Parliamentary Union?

I do not think that comments of such a pessimistic nature as that are necessarily helpful to the Belgrade Review Conference.

As the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement has a specific section about newspaper circulation, will the Minister make representations to the Government of Czechoslovakia, who have stopped the circulation and sale in their country of all British newspapers, including the Morning Star?

I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend will write to me about this matter, and I will look at it.

Is there any tangible evidence at all that the Soviet Union and its allies have changed their fundamental attitude towards the human rights of a number of their own citizens? Will the Government indicate whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied with the spirit of the Soviet Union's implementation of the Helsinki Agreement?

As I have already said, a note outlining the actions that the Soviet Union has taken appeared in Hansard on 10th March. Obviously the Government are not going to be satisfied until all aspects of the agreement are fully implemented by the signatories to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many accredited diplomatic staff there are at the Chilean Embassy in London.

Thirteen, Sir.

Did my hon. Friend see the statement made by Mr. John Cooper last month in which he said he had been hired for more than two years to collect information about organisations in Britain concerned with human rights in Chile, and to disrupt their activities? Has an inquiry taken place into these allegations? Will my hon. Friend make representations to the Chilean Ambassador, telling him that we will not tolerate this sort of spying on the legitimate activities of British citizens and the political refugees under our protection?

I am aware of the anonymous allegations made in a television programme. Such allegations are disquieting, but there is as yet no substantive evidence to back them up.

As our trade with Chile is so important, does the Minister not agree that it is time we once again had full diplomatic relations and exchange of personnel with Chile, as we have with many other dictatorial régimes of which hon. Members may disapprove?

We withdrew our ambassador as a result of a particularly distasteful and unpleasant case that involved the torture and detention of a British citizen for 60 days without charge on any offence. That is a most unsatisfactory and distasteful situation, and we were fully justified in the action that we took.

Now that the submarines have been completed on the Clyde, are the Government giving any consideration to impounding them and ensuring that they do not go to this despicable Chilean Government?

The first of the two submarines has been handed over to the Chilean Government. The second has not yet been, and the matter is under review in the light of payments and other matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC Foreign Ministers for a discussion about those parts of the Tindemans Report relating to foreign policy.

At the Foreign Affairs Council on 29th and 30th June.

The Foreign Secretary made it clear that he regarded the concerting of foreign policy as one of the most fruitful lines of development for the Community. That process does not need to wait for joint decisions on the Tindemans Report. Has he had time to give his attention to concerting foreign policy with our partners on matters such as Yugoslavia, Spain and Cyprus, which are so important to the Community?

I accept what the hon. Member says. At Luxembourg last Saturday, at one of a series of informal meetings of Foreign Ministers, we had a considerable discussion on the objective of concerting foreign policy. Without going into great detail, I can assure the hon. Member that there was a wide measure of agreement. I told our partners very strongly what I feel very strongly—that the failure of the EEC to concert a common position on UNCTAD was a major setback for the EEC.

What are the Government doing to prepare for the first six months of next year, when Britain will be in the chair of the European Council and, as a consequence, our diplomats abroad will be called upon to speak collectively for all nine Governments?

We are doing an enormous amount of preparatory work, both of a physical character, to decide where all the innumerable meetings should be held, and in terms of contingency planning on policy. A large amount of work is going on, not only in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office but in other Departments, to prepare for next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures have been decided upon within the Council of Ministers for handling the Tindemans Report.

Foreign Ministers agreed in May to devote some time at each of their meetings to consideration of the report, chapter by chapter. They are expected to report back to the European Council at the end of November, though they may make an interim report to the July European Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny his own belief in the accuracy of Mr. Tindemans' remarks when he said in his report that public opinion wanted to see results but that he doubted whether there was sufficient will in individual Governments to overcome the practical problems towards encouraging wider European co-operation?

That is a general and almost philosophical supplementary question, which it is literally impossible to answer. However, I shall try to answer it by saying that I am sure the people of the Community want to see some results from the Community. What they want is not some grand declaration of overall constitutional design but to see the Community making sense for them in terms of living standards, the fight against unemployment, and regional policy. It is the attitude of the British Government that the Community should concentrate more and more on that aspect of its work.

Is it the policy of the British Government to encourage further European countries, other than Greece, into full membership of the Community? Is it the fact that the United States Government support that policy?

I have no idea of the attitude that the United States Government take on these matters, not least because they have nothing to do with the Government of the United States. These are matters for the Community and for the treaty provisions governing new members. I am happy to confirm that the Community looks forward to the application by Greece to join the Community. I think that accession negotiations will soon begin. All applications have to be treated on their merits. Some severe rules govern those who may or may not apply. Application is open only to European democracies, but if other democracies wish to enter the Community we shall look upon their application within the terms of the treaty, which provides that they are entitled to apply for membership.

In his report Mr. Tindemans laid great stress on the importance of joint foreign policy action by the Community. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider with his colleagues, at the next meeting that he attends, the possibility of an early Community initiative on Cyprus? Would it not be possible to find an experienced European statesman who would go to the various capitals, as the representative of the Community, to bring the principals together over a period of, possibly, six months? Will the right hon. Gentleman try to use the authority of the Community to promote a settlement of this problem before it erupts into a further explosion?

The authority of the Community has been used over the past year to persuade the parties to the inter-communal talks to accept the disciplines and the prospects of those talks ending in success with a good deal more realism than in the past. The Community's coordinated efforts will continue to try to get the talks going in a satisfactory way under the chairmanship of Dr. Waldheim. I personally doubt whether any other Community initiative would be of value. I believe that the future for Cyprus and the exercise of bringing the country back to something like normal conditions must lie with the inter-communal talks. The Community has co-ordinated its policy to make those talks a success.

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

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

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

I met other EEC Foreign Ministers at an informal meeting at Senningen on 12th June. The next Foreign Affairs Council will be on 29th and 30th June, but I expect to meet a number of my colleagues on other occasions before then.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with his EEC colleagues the problem regarding overseas students' fees, bearing in mind that we are virtually the only Common Market country to discriminate against foreign students in this way, and that many of the Common Market countries do not charge tuition fees at all? Will he resist any attempts to increase this discrimination, especially in view of reports of a Cabinet study group proposal for a 400 per cent. further increase in overseas students' fees?

The last great row in the House about overseas fees was when I was Secretary of State for Education and Science. I do not see why I should take responsibility for a second row. The question of overseas students' fees is under active consideration, but I must insist that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.

Did the Foreign Secretary notice the remarks, last weekend, of Mr. Gaston Thorn, the current President of the Council of Ministers, who voiced his alarm at the inability of Community Ministers to reach a consensus on so many things? He added that the Community could not last for long like this. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a widespread feeling that the Community is now beginning to head for disarray? That expression has been used by many eminent pro-Marketeers, and they are deeply anxious about it. Will the right hon. Gentleman welcome, before he takes the chair next year, an inquiry into why things are not working as expected?

I note the hon. Member's extreme solicitude for the successful working of the Community, and I share it. I should be very happy to hear his views at any time about how we can improve matters. I believe that Mr. Thorn, at the end of a long and exhausting day, was unduly gloomy in what he said. But it is proper to say that as a newcomer to these meetings I am also concerned at the difficulty that the Community finds in reaching decisions, and we have reached the stage when we all ought to think out exactly what our objectives are and exactly what are the objectives of the Community. I hope that there will be a debate on this subject tomorrow, and I hope that in a foreign affairs debate that we shall probably have before the end of July the House will turn its attention to what the future of the Community ought to be.

Will the Foreign Secretary tell his colleagues in the EEC to do something about the disgraceful discrimination in Europe against Scotch whisky? As a result of that discrimination, sales of whisky in Italy have dropped 36 per cent. over the last year. That is against the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Rome.

I shall look into this matter. I must confess that whenever I go to the Continent, whatever I am offered in the way of fine wines of splendid vintage, I drink absolutely nothing but Scotch whisky.

When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of the EEC will he discuss with them the multifibre arrangement and the import-sharing agreement? While these may be an acceptable framework for trade in textiles, they place an unfair burden on the British industry, particularly in circumstances in which they share future burdens and not past burdens, and in which there is still a growth of imports when the industry remains in a recession.

I am pleased to learn from my right hon. Friend that this is one of the subjects that is to be debated tomorrow.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further measures of harmonisation in the EEC he expects to discuss during 1976.

I expect the Council will give further consideration during 1976 to proposals by the Commission within the framework of the General Programme on the Abolition of Technical Barriers to Trade.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the motion of censure yesterday mounted by Euro-fanatics is an indication of the growing unease about the way in which the Community is now operating? Does he accept that the recent directive requiring veterinary inspectors to replace environmental health officers is also an indication of that, and that it is unnecessary and totally unreasonable? Will he assure the House that he will resist measures on harmonisation when our existing standards are reasonable and satisfactory?

I accept the implication in the third part of the question, that harmonisation for its own sake—it is currently called gratuitous harmonisation—should be resisted, and the Government will resist it. I cannot share the opinions that my hon. Friend expressed in the rest of his question. Whatever the motion of censure was about yesterday, I do not think it conformed with any principles to which my hon. Friend would subscribe. On the second part of his question, he must put the point specifically to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. On a number of these issues, attempts to improve conditions within the Community are carried out in the name of the Community, whereas before they would have been done on much the same scale on the authority of the British Government. The criticism would then have accrued to the British Government, whereas now it accrues to the Community. We have to judge individual propositions on their merits, and that is what we shall continue to do.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British citizens are now the largest group of those who are breaking our animal quarantine regulations? Will he consider inviting our EEC partners to institute, for the animals of British visitors, quarantine regulations similar to those that we impose upon the animals of foreigners coming into this country? That seems to be the only way in which we can prevent our own citizens misbehaving in this way.

I should like to give the hon. Gentleman an answer to that question. I should do so if I understood it, and if I thought it relevant to the Question on the Order Paper. If he tables a Question I shall do my best to accommodate him.

Should we not have more harmony in Western Europe if we had less harmonisation?

I hope that my right hon. Friend, like me, takes an empiric view of these matters. He will have heard the view that I expressed in answer to an earlier question—namely, that the problems and prospects of harmonization should be examined and considered on their merits. When it seems to the Government that benefit will accrue from harmonisation—the removal of some of the non-tariff barriers to trade would be beneficial to British industry—we shall support it. On the other hand, when it seems unnecessary or gratuitous, we shall oppose it.

Would it not be better to talk of uniformity rather than of harmonisation? Does the Minister agree that harmonisation has a pleasant musical sound about it, which tends to draw people's thinking away from judging these matters impartially, on their merits?

I am sorry to have to enter into a semantic argument with the hon. Gentleman. Surely uniformity is an extreme form of harmonisation. As the Government want to take a moderate view of harmonisation, we do not wish to go right to the end of the road, which is the implication of the question.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that at present harmonisation is resulting in an astonishing number of civil servants of all nine member States spending a great deal of time on the most astounding trivia, ranging from the harmonisation of mayonnaise to the standardisation of continental time? It is the time that is being spent on such extraordinary and totally useless measures that is adding to the cost for the taxpayer and bringing the whole Common Market administration into disrepute. Will my right hon. Friend make some effort to ensure that harmonisation is concerned with useful measures and not utterly useless ones?

I have already said that I believe that harmonisation should happen only when there is some benefit to accrue. However, I urge my hon. Friend not to think of harmonisation in such a wholly total way—either wholly bad or wholly good. For example, two years ago many of us who now support—myself among them—a regulation to make uniform the fitting of rear-view mirrors on agricultural vehicles thought—myself included—that it was a funny proposition. However, I understand it has made it easier for British tractor manufacturers to sell into the EEC. That sort of harmonisation seems wholly beneficial.

On an important detail, is the Minister aware that there is a certain lack of harmony among British chicken breeders on the New York-dressed poultry issue? Will he bring the House up to date about this matter? Is he seeking to achieve a situation that will enable us to sell New York-dressed poultry within this country, even if in future it is not possible to do so between countries of the EEC?

The question of New York-dressed poultry is eminently a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I must not trespass on his preserves.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important item of harmonisation on the EEC agenda at the moment is the view of member States on direct elections? Will he deny reports that Britain is one of two Governments holding up an agreement on direct elections? Will he and his right hon. Friends press ahead with harmonisation on this issue as soon as possible?

I am not sure whether direct elections legitimately come under the heading of harmonisation. I assure my hon. Friend that there is no question of Britain holding up agreement against a majority opinion. Britain has been as co-operative as is consistent with preserving the British national interest. As for pressing ahead, we have made our position clear. We did so in the two-day debate in March. When the Select Committee reports, which I hope it soon will, no doubt the House will be able to express its view on the way that we should press on and the terms in which the pressing should continue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other EEC Ministers about the Icelandic fisheries dispute.

Throughout the Icelandic fisheries dispute and since its conclusion Her Majesty's Government have kept in very close touch about it with all Community Governments and with the Commission.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable sympathy and admiration for the courage and realism that he has used in extricating this country from the untenable position in which it had been placed by the jingoistic bragging of his predecessor? Will he draw the lesson from this incident, and in seeking to define a future fisheries policy pay regard to obtainable objectives and the common interests of our partners?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks, which I hope will be noted in Humberside. As for the latter part of his remarks, I accept the broad objective, subject to my view that the British national interest in this case is of overriding importance.

Without wishing in any manner to have a post mortem on this subject, and bearing in mind that in my right hon. Friend's constituency and in mine many vessels are now being laid up, will he be prepared, in the event of our not getting another agreement on 1st December, to ask the EEC to impose a tariff upon Icelandic exports of fish into the Community?

My hon. Friend is very vocal on these matters but, with respect, he does not always get his facts correct. If he had bothered to read the text of the agreement, which, as a Humberside MP, he should have done, he would have seen that it is made clear that in the view of the British Government Protocol 6 should apply only for the duration of the six months agreement with Iceland, unless and until some further long-term agreement is made. My hon. Friend has made enough criticisms of the agreement, without getting his facts totally and completely wrong.

Has the Minister discussed the extension of fisheries limits to 200 miles, with a 50-mile exclusive economic zone, which has become even more essential in view of the effects of the settlement of the Icelandic dispute?

At the last Council of Ministers meeting my right hon. Friend the Minister of State described in broad outline the British negotiating position. As far as I am concerned, that is the final position on the exclusive coastal belt. If we achieve our aims in this matter, there is no doubt that in total the catch for British industry should in future be roughly what it has been in the past, although, as the hon. Gentleman will know, there will be an enormous shift in the character of the catch.

Will the Secretary of State reach a speedy decision with his EEC colleagues on who is to patrol the fishing limits round Britain? Will he quickly place orders for the boats and the aircraft that will be required for such purposes?

That is a pertinent question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has foreseen this situation for some time past and has been placing orders of a character that will meet the hon. Gentleman's demands.

Does my right hon. Friend accept the view expressed by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday that anything beyond a 12-mile limit is not possible without a change in the Treaty? Does he agree that it means the fishing policy depending upon quotas and national enforcement, which will be disastrous for our fishing industry and reflects a negotiating posture in which we are likely to lose yet again?

I did not read the remarks made by Commissioner Lardinois yesterday. Therefore, I do not like to give a snap off-the-cuff judgment on them. On what my hon. Friend said, however, they would meet with considerable resistance from the British Government.

Despite the Secretary of State's apparent determination not to help Humberside fishermen, will he tell the House that he will do his best to ensure that a 50-mile exclusive economic zone is made available for British fishermen after the Law of the Sea Conference reports?

The Government have already publicly made known their view on the common fisheries policy. I hope that, for a change, the hon. Gentleman will tell his constituents the truth of the matter.