asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the United Nations Security Council, he will sponsor a resolution to make mandatory the ban on arms supplies to South Africa.

The United Nations Security Council is empowered to pass mandatory resolutions where it is established that a threat to international peace and security exists. Although we regard the South African Government's racial policies as detestable and dangerous, we do not consider them to pose such a threat.

As it is, however, the Labour Government's policy to ban British arms supplies to South Africa, why do we not press to make it mandatory on others, particularly after Soweto? Would not a mandatory ban block the loopholes effectively? As regards my right hon. Friend's last point, have not recent events in Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa itself now made South Africa a threat to peace?

I do not think that a mandatory resolution would necessarily automatically be applied in the total way that my hon. Friend is suggesting, though if that were so I would share with him the regret that that is sometimes the response of some countries. Our basic obligation is both to reiterate our views on apartheid and to pay proper respect to the regulations governing the conduct of the United Nations. In doing that, I cannot in all conscience say that the terms of the United Nations procedures enable us to have the processes and follow the forms that my hon. Friend suggests.

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

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

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

I would refer the hon. Members to the answer my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 16th June.

Will the Minister reconsider that reply in the light of the recent meeting between Dr. Kissinger and Mr. Vorster, from which it was clear that they felt that a new British initiative would now be timely? Will he also consider publishing the discussion paper which was prepared by his office in discussion with the ANC prior to the negotiations between the ANC and Mr. Smith? Will he further comment on the reports on the radio today that the American Under-Secretary of State is touring Africa with proposals for compensation and guarantees for minorities?

What we desperately need is to avoid taking initiatives which again will fail. We have had a succession of initiatives taken by Governments of both major parties over a number of years. We must frankly confess that none has succeeded. Each time there is a failure, it enhances tension and increases the likelihood of a military build-up. That is what is behind our consideration and our belief that the statement of 22nd March laid down the very principles that would have to be agreed before we could get an effective initiative going. That does not preclude us from exploring other ways of bringing this home to the white minority régime in Rhodesia.

I appeal to hon. Members to try to make their supplementary question only one question. That is only fair to the rest of the House, and it will also enable the Minister to give a brief reply.

Will my hon. Friend go a little further than he did in his last reply on the subject of the American official? Is it true that the official is touring Africa with a view to securing possibilities of resettlement of white Rhodesians, if necessary? Was this agreed with the British Government, if it is true, and should we not be doing it anyway?

I certainly wish to be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker. I cannot comment on the people that Mr. Schaufele will be seing in African capitals. It is the British Government's policy that the whole emphasis should be to try to keep the whites in Rhodesia after majority rule.

As it is clear that while Rhodesia remains primarily a British responsibility the whole international community is increasingly worried by the drift towards disaster in Rhodesia, will the Government at least start to reopen their minds, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) suggested, to the desirability of a new British initiative, on a wider basis than hitherto, for getting going talks that might involve other interested countries in Europe, Africa and North America?

I think I have already answered that point when I commented that an intiative which proved to be a failure or a disaster, or was merely a dramatic gesture, would create the very tension and problems that we are all trying to avoid. Unless we can get the fundamental principles agreed beforehand, we do not see an initiative of this kind working.

Have not the Tanzanian Government submitted to the Commonwealth Secretariat a paper on resettlement of whites from Rhodesia? While obviously welcoming any prospect of their remaining there to build a multiracial society, may I ask how the discussions on that paper are proceeding?

The Tanzanian Government have circulated a paper as my hon. Friend describes, but, as I have said, the whole emphasis of our policy ought to be to try to create a situation which will allow the whites in Rhodesia to stay there in peace and help and work with the new Government and the new society.

Does the Minister accept that there are a great number of Europeans and Africans in Rhodesia who feel that a deteriorating war of attrition will not only lead to chaos as far as they are concerned but will provide a foothold for the Soviet Union and Cuba to exploit? Since that is a situation which is extremely grave, will the Minister and the Government at least make it clear that if only both sides were to compromise we in the West are prepared to give every assistance possible?

The hon. Gentleman must realise that the simplest and easiest, and also the most effective, way of preventing the bloodshed which he and many people are forecasting is if Mr. Smith and his régime were to accept the principles of majority rule so that we can get on with the job of rebuilding the new society.

Concerning recent events in Rhodesia, would my hon. Friend care to comment on the allegations which have been made about alleged sanctions-busting in Rhodesia by British Leyland and BP, organisations with which the British Government have very considerable interest?

As we have said repeatedly, if we get any substantive evidence of any form of sanction-busting or sanction-breaking we shall investigate the matter fully. We have always taken up proper cases and there have been heavy fines for some companies which have broken sanctions.

Is the only precondition to a further British initiative the acceptance by Mr. Smith of the principle of majority rule?

The points laid down on 22nd March, with which the right hon. Gentleman is familiar, are the preconditions we would lay down and the principles with which a framework of negotiations could succeed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for an initiative to resolve the constitutional problem in Rhodesia.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. BrocklebankFowler).

Will the hon. Gentleman take account of the fact that we are asking the white population of Rhodesia to change the attitudes and policies in which they have believed, sometimes passionately, for a good many years? Will he represent to his colleagues, whether in the Government or outside, that it is possible that it does not help for them to abuse and adopt a hectoring tone towards those white people? Is it not possible that instead of abuse it would be more effective if we were to offer them encouragement by making an effort to look after their interests in any settlement?

I think that I answered this question at considerable length in reply to an earlier supplementary question. The best way to solve the problem is to recognise the need for rapid change. I accept the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but I believe it is necessary for the white population to change its ways quickly so that we can get down to planning a multi-racial society in Rhodesia.

In resolving the problems of Rhodesia, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will fully co-operate with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the other people concerned—the police—in investigating the activities of some of the shady people associated with Lonrho and their activities in Rhodesia?

May I say first that there is no relationship between "Tiny" Rowland and myself. There is no "s" in Mr. Rowland's name and we are rather different in size. Of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office always co-operates with the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the plans for the development of the Falkland Islands, in the light of the report he has received from Lord Shackleton.

My right hon. Friend has received Lord Shackleton's report, which runs to several hundred pages, and is studying it.

Does the Minister agree that there is some degree of urgency in making the report public so that the people of the Falkland Islands can themselves show an expression of what they feel it is possible to do in the light of the report?

We hope to publish the report as soon as possible and certainly, I hope, before the recess. But it is a very bulky document and we have had the usual problems of preparing it and getting it ready. There is no lack of willingness on our part to publish the report and to receive comments from the Falkland Islands and elswhere about it.

In view of the continuing turbulence within the Argentine, does not my hon. Friend agree that there is every possibility that some trigger-happy group will again try to invade the Falkland Islands? In view of this possibility, does he not consider that it is time to initiate something radically new in the Government's attitude in respect of this problem?

We are endeavouring to try to ensure that the wishes of the Falkland Islanders do not come between us and the Argentine Government and destroy the mutual interest that exists in many other cases. We are endeavouring to ensure that this issue does not create the tension or the bitterness to which my hon. Friend refers.

Can the Minister give us some idea of the date of publication of the report? Is he aware that the report is awaited with anxiety and impatience by the Falkland Islanders, who think their whole new future depends on it and that some aspects are becoming rather urgent? Can the Minister undertake to publish the report before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

I have every hope that we shall be able to do so.

Whatever may or may not be in the report, will the Minister reaffirm the assurance that, if the Falkland Islanders wish to remain British, British they shall remain?

I reaffirm the undertaking which successive Governments have given to respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders.

In view of the Minister's reply that he would avoid friction with the Argentine, will he accept that many hon. Members in all parts of the House are fully behind the aspirations of the people of the Falkland Islands and that, regardless of how the Argentine Government look at the matter, we wish the British Government to support the aspirations of those people?

We shall endeavour, within our abilities and capacity, to assist the Falkland Islanders and their welfare. That is in common with our efforts in regard to every other territory in the British dependent territories.

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

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

Would it not be appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to visit India in the near future so that discussions could be held in regard to the possibility of Indians being expelled from African countries and, in that eventuality, the Indian Government offering Great Britain her co-operation?

I think the hon. Gentleman already knows that there are, in fact, a great number of United Kingdom passport holders from Africa who have gone back to India. We have been in contact with the Indian Government over the last two or three weeks about various other aspects of immigration and race relations policy in this country.

May I express the hope that my right hon. Friend will visit India? When he does, will he consider raising with the Indian Government the sadness with which many of us in the House greet the current policies of the Indian Government regarding the illegal imprisonment of members of the Opposition, and will he say what a sad reflection that is upon the hopes and aspirations visited upon India when it was given independence by the Labour Government?

We regret any violation of human rights or departure from democratic principles which takes place in any part of the world. The Indian Government are aware of our views on this question. It is basically a question of domestic jurisdiction, and it is not possible for us to make representations on matters of this kind.

Does the Minister realise that it is rather urgent that his right hon. Friend should go to India to resolve the discrepancies of policy and approach which have emerged as existing between the Home Office and the Foreign Office since publication of the Hawley Report? In particular, will the Minister give his attention to the passage in the report which said that many officials from his Department were worried about the way a Home Office Minister had instructed them to decide on entry clearance certificates on the balance of probabilities rather than on the previous standard of being beyond reasonable doubt?

The hon. Gentleman is somewhat obsessed with the idea that there is a great discrepancy of policy between the Home Office and the Foreign Office over matters of this kind. There is no evidence whatever of any such difference in policy. On the question of discretion for Home Office Ministers, there has always been an element of discretion. The particular Minister concerned is no longer involved in that Department, but there are no problems of the kind that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

On a different aspect of our relations with India, can the Minister say what the outlook is regarding Concorde flights and why the Indian Government appear to have reacted so disappointingly to our request?

That is another aspect of Indian policy which is a matter of regret to us at present. We are in discussion with the Indian Government precisely on this matter, and we still hope that they will allow the overflight of Concorde at supersonic speed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken in view of the evidence supplied by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) concerning the activities of South African individuals and agencies in the United Kingdom.

The information made available by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley is still being studied by the appropriate authorities.

As it is several months since the dossier was promised, can the Minister say when it was received by the Foreign Office and when we can expect some action on it?

I cannot give a precise date regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I can assure him that the people who take these matters seriously rather than attempt to score political points will expect the Foreign Office or the appropriate institutions of government to examine my hon. Friend's evidence with great care, and that we propose to do.

Will my right hon. Friend, as well as looking at the evidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley, look at the more recent evidence of the Lonrho report, not only because of evasion of sanctions to which the report refers but also because of the comments of Mr. "Tiny" Rowland that BOSS was involved in the Lonrho enterprise?

Questions about that report are essentially matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. If my hon. Friend will allow me, however, I want to emphasise that there is some evidence of the sort of activity to which my hon. Friend drew attention. That is considerable substantiation for my contention that Opposition Members should take these matters seriously, otherwise they are likely to be proved wrong in the near future.

Is the Foreign Secretary also looking into the alleged evidence that the previous Prime Minister had?

Certainly. Not only that, but I am reinforced in my attitude on this by a statement made by the present Prime Minister a few days ago. The hon. Member will recall, I am sure, because of his assiduous attendance of this House and his concentration on these matters, that my right hon. Friend the present Prime Minister reminded the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) had on many occasions in the past discovered things that were revealed to other hon. Members only rather later. Neither the Prime Minister nor I have any doubt that that situation will be repeated.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about compensation for damage to the property of British citizens in Cyprus.

The developments I reported in my reply to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 19th May are being followed up, but it is as yet too soon to expect any further substantive progress.

As the compensation was offered last July and a claims commission was promised last December, is it not time for the commission to be set up? Will the hon. Gentleman press the Turkish authorities much harder than he has been doing, in the realisation that many of the victims are elderly and would like to obtain the benefit of compensation while they are able to enjoy it?

We are conscious of that very fact. Contrary to what the hon. Gentleman says, we have been pressing the Turkish Government hard on this question. The claims commission has not yet been established, but we are taking steps to inform our own claimants of their rights and to help them to submit their own claims.

Has my hon. Friend taken any action on the recommendations in the report of the Select Committee that a small fund for those in urgent immediate need should be set up by the British Government?

We certainly noted that recommendation, together with many other recommendations in that report. However, it is a basic principle, which has been followed by British Governments of all political parties over many years, that we never ourselves provide compensation for losses incurred in foreign countries, and we do not intend to make an exception in this case.

This cannot be a great matter for the Turkish Government, but it is a great matter for the individual British citizens concerned. Could this not be raised at a slightly higher level?

As I said, we have already made these points, but I will take note of what the hon. Member and others have said and we shall certainly seek to press the matter once more and even more firmly.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that Mr. Demirel has now said that he can see no possible way of progress being made in any of the outstanding issues on the whole of the Cypriot question? Therefore, could not the British Government now be concerned directly with the Turkish Government in some initiatives which would not only bring about a resumption of the intercommunal talks but would be shown to be positive steps not only for the restoration of the sovereignty of the island but for some pursuance of the United Nations situation?

We have consistently believed, and said that we believe, that the way forward is through the inter-communal talks. We have given support and will continue to give support to the United Nations Secretary-General and others in trying to ensure that those talks are resumed as soon as possible.

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

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

When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gets back from wherever he is at the moment, will the Minister of State urge upon him that hon. Members on this side of the House feel that Cyprus is one of those urgent problems, among others, to which he should give greater attention? What initiatives are the British Government now taking in the EEC and the United Nations to solve the problem?

The initiative that the Government continue to take is one that they feel is most likely to succeed, which is pressure through whatever sources are available to us—the EEC and others—for the reconstitution of the inter-communal talks and the continuation of those talks on matters of substance. That seems to us more likely to result in progress than any other sort of initiative that has ever been suggested to us.

What action have the Government taken to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee?

The Government will publish their reply or their comments on the Select Commitee's recommendations quite soon. In the meantime, the House must judge our reaction from the statement I made on the day the Select Committee's report was produced, which was that much of the evidence given to the Select Committee was ignored and that its judgments were by no means objective and impartial.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are still 2,000 Greek Cypriots missing since the Turkish invasion and that United Nations Resolution 3450 of December 1975 reaffirmed the basic need for families to be informed about their missing relatives and requested the Secretary-General of the United Nations to use all his efforts to trace those people? Why has no progress been made on this humanitarian problem?

The Government entirely share the concern which my hon. Friend has expressed and horror that for so long these people have been missing and their families have been left in doubt and distress. The Government have done their best, through representations to Turkey and elsewhere, to discover their whereabouts. I discussed the matter with the Foreign Minister of Greece when I was in Athens three weeks ago. Many of these tragic problems will not be solved until there is a settlement to the Cyprus problem. We must concentrate on that.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that a visit to Cyprus by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would be a reaffirmation of our acceptance of our obligations there under the treaty and would be welcomed as an earnest of the Government's intention to try to have the inter-communal talks restarted? Does he accept that the longer there is delay on the matter the more difficult it will be to resolve one of the most tragic problems in that part of the world?

I agree with the third part of my hon. Friend's question. I hope that there is no need for a reaffirmation of our support for our obligations and for the re-establishment of a Cyprus which is independent, sovereign and peaceful. My only argument with my hon. Friend concerns his second point, about the advantages of an early visit by my right hon. Friend. What Cyprus does not need now is initiatives which might appear glamorous and attractive superficially but which end in disaster and failure. It is much better for my right hon. Friend to continue what he has done over the past three months, which is to work quietly, and I hope more successfully, for a speedy solution.

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

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

If and when a Minister goes to Malawi, will he seek to discuss with the authorities there the reports which have been received recently of the persecution of members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious sect? While in no way wishing to interfere with the internal affairs of Malawi, may I ask him to draw to the attention of the authorities there the concern of many people in this country about that persecution, which appears to be taking place for no better reason than that those concerned are members of that sect?

As I said, no Minister has at present any plans to go to Malawi, but, as I also said earlier, we deplore any violation of human rights in any part of the world. I have no doubt that the Government in Malawi will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and of what is widely felt in the House and the country.

When there are official contacts with Malawi, will my hon. Friend make it clear to President Banda that, although many of us hope that he was misled by various toadies in his own Administration in his reaction to the Goan community in that country and the expulsion of some of them, there is a correlation which many of us would draw here between aid given to Malawi and civil rights in that country, particularly of those who have been expelled?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said in a recent answer in the House that questions of human rights are taken into account in the administration of our aid policy. As my hon. Friend probably knows, I asked to see the High Commissioner for Malawi several weeks ago, when I pointed out the deep concern in the House and elsewhere about human rights questions in Malawi and said that it would perhaps be difficult for us as a Government not to take some account of those feelings in relation to aid policy.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that any United Kingdom passport holders in Malawi who are forced to seek refuge in this country should be made just as welcome as any of our passport holders in Rhodesia who may wish to come here if the situation there deteriorates further?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but we have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that there are likely to be more United Kingdom passport holders in Malawi who are to be expelled from Malawi.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy toward the present situation in South Africa.

As my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) on 24th June, we are deeply disturbed by recent events in South Africa which are a clear warning to the South African Government of the urgent need to change their racial policies. The United Kingdom supported a United Nations Security Council resolution on 19th June condemning the callous resort to violence by the South African Government against those opposing racial discrimination.

In view of the oppressive brutality of the racialist régime in South Africa, especially the recent atrocities in Soweto, will my right hon. Friend take additional measures to stop people in this country bolstering up apartheid? In particular, will he take additional measures to stop the export not only of arms but of technical equipment for use by the South African military and police forces and additional measures to stop the export of investment, including indirect investment in South Africa by public bodies such as local authorities?

I do not believe that a policy of general economic sanctions would be in the interests either of the British people or of South Africa. However, I would take this opportunity to assure my hon. Friend that our policy of embargoing and preventing the export of equipment which might be used for military purposes in South Africa will continue and is being applied rigidly.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, will he confirm that he repudiates the suggestion made recently by the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party that the Government should work at the United Nations for a mandatory ban on all trade with South Africa? Since our exports to South Africa exceeded £600 million last year, how many jobs would be affected if such a ban came into force?

These matters, although they raise questions of deeply-held conscience and principle, are best not discussed in emotive terms like "repudiate". I have made clear our attitude towards economic sanctions, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That will continue to be the Government's policy.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Secretary of State's reply to me about the Soweto massacre was warmly received, while one regretted the necessity for that kind of reply? Is he aware that the majority of the people in South Africa will either get their liberty or will take their liberty and that the difference between the two options is an ocean of blood and a generation of misery? Has he acquainted Dr. Kissinger of Her Majesty's Government's views, and what has been the response from the American Secretary of State?

It is not for me to interpret the views of the American Administration or the Secretary of State, but I should have thought that it was clear from statements made publicly by Dr. Kissinger that he shares the view which my hon. Friend and I hold, which is not only that the policy of South Africa is morally wrong but that it is impossible to continue in practice. I should have thought that the evidence of that was overwhelming and accepted by all thinking people.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Anglo-French Puma helicopter is still being sold to South Africa as it was by the pre-1970 Labour Government?

No, I cannot.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks of a risk of violence in South Africa, will he bear in mind that over half of those tragically killed in Soweto were killed not by the police but by other rioters?

I think there is an interesting philosophical distinction between the occasion of their death, which may have been rioting, and the cause of their death, which seems unequivocally to have been the policies of the South African Government.

Do Her Majesty's Government draw any distinction of policy towards South Africa as distinct from Namibia?

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from Her Majesty's representatives in South-East Asia about the situation in Cambodia.

We do not have diplomatic relations with the Government of Democratic Kampuchea and there is no official British representation in Phnom Penh. But we have made inquiries elsewhere in South-East Asia, and have conveyed to the Kampucheans the deep and widespread concern felt in Britain about reports received here.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investigations show that there has been genocide in Cambodia? Is he aware that people are becoming increasingly sick of the double standards of the United Nations? When fewer than 200 rioters were killed at Soweto their deaths caused a major debate, but over 200,000 have been killed cold-bloodedly in Cambodia and no one seems to care.

It is clear from the considerable amount of information and evidence that has become available that abuses and atrocities have occurred, although we cannot accurately assess the scale of the abuses and atrocities. Following the strong feelings expressed in the House when I last answered Questions, representations have been conveyed through the channels open to us to the Government in Phnom Penh.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends deplore the atrocities that have been committed in Cambodia and the undoubted infringements of human rights, but is not serious blame to be attached to those who did not speak out when the Americans invaded Cambodia and bombed it, thereby producing this tragic situation? Do not those who failed to speak out then bear moral responsibility for the terrible things that have occurred?

I do not think I should dwell on the history of the situation in Cambodia. However, the present situation is one of considerable concern for Members in all parts of the House.

The Minister said that representations have been made to the Cambodian Government. What reply has been received?

None.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is rumoured that some 800,000 people have died in the course of one year in Cambodia? Will he say why the United Nations is not taking a greater interest in the activities in Cambodia? Has he considered the possibility of having a representative in Phnom Penh so that we may know what is going on?

We have been considering the question of representation, but to date we have decided that we cannot proceed further and we have not obtained an agreement to proceed with the new Government. I cannot speak on behalf of the whole of the United Nations, but I do not think there would be much value in Britain taking up the case if the issue did not succeed at the United Nations. That might provide more comfort rather than an improvement in the situation.

Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that when the previous regime in Cambodia was carrying out the most ruthless atrocities the voice of the Conservative Party was conspicuous by its deafening silence?

Yes, I certainly note that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give an assurance that no steps will be taken to ratify the present agreement between the partner Governments in the Britsh Phosphates Commission in the Gilbert Islands Colony Government relating to the future management of Ocean Island's phosphates against the will of the Banabans who own the land on Ocean Island, before Her Majesty's Government's final decision is announced on the Banabans' petition for the independence of their homeland.

No, Sir. I hope that full agreement can be reached on new arrangements for the phosphate industry very shortly.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that although over the years Her Majesty's Government have given firm and solemn assurances to the Banabans that their rights on Ocean Island would be respected, the Chief Minister of the Gilbert Islands said at Tarawa on 19th June that after independence he would not necessarily be bound by those assurances? Is it not entirely wrong for talks to take place this month, or for any agreement to be entered into regarding the future of the Gilbert Islands, without drawing the Banabans into the consultations and giving them assurances as to their future? Finally, will the Minister take note that Parliament is unlikely to agree to constitutional arrangements based upon any breach of solemn undertakings given by British Governments?

The Banaban leaders were present and initialled the agreed minute following the discussions that occurred last month on the phosphate industry, although they entered their reservations. The development of the constitution of the Gilbert Islands does not in any way jeopardise the broader issues involved in independence and the issues of the Banaban petition.

Is my hon. Friend aware that over a decade Members from both sides of the House have been striving to get a fair deal for poor people who have been badly treated in this matter? Is it not time that the House and the Government recognised the British moral obligation towards these people?

I recognise the legitimate interests, feelings and wishes of the Banabans, as, indeed, of all the islanders on the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. I have visited the Gilbert and Ellice Islands and have had many discussions with the Banabans. I do not think that their rights and wishes have been overruled.

Do not the Government have any special moral obligation towards peoples in colonies and protectorates whose resources have been pillaged during the protectorate?

We have responsibility, which we accept, for the interests of all the islanders. The hon. Gentleman, if he has followed these difficult cases, will realise that there is a conflict of interest within the islands regarding future development.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a special meeting with Foreign Ministers of OECD countries to consider the situation in Southern Africa following the Soweto massacre.

The Government lose no opportunity to make known at appropriate internatiooal meetings their total opposition to apartheid and the South African Government's brutal enforcement of internal repression. The United Nations Security Council has already passed a resolution, which we supported, condemning the South African Government's violent repression of the disturbances in Soweto. However, we do not believe that the OECD, which is primarily concerned with economic questions, is the correct forum to consider this problem.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is precisely the underpinning and development of the South African economy by the Western world that has cast apartheid into its permanent mould? As long as that support and underpinning from the Western world continue, the possibility of breaking apartheid other than by a savage racial war is not on. In the light of this, will my right hon. Friend reconsider his answer?

No. I believe that apartheid is not only wrong but doomed to failure. It is the duty of the Government to bring about an end to this obnoxious system with the minimum amount of suffering for the people of South Africa. The worst situation would be if the system were ended by war. A situation that would not be as bad but potentially dangerous would be some sort of economic boycott and economic starvation. I believe that we must look forward to progress of a different sort on behalf of all the people of South Africa, as well as taking into account the proper interests of the British economy.

In view of the proposals that the Transkei should become independent in October, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is sympathetic to the strong line being taken by Chief Matinzima that the African people living in the Republic should have a choice of citizenship between the Transkei and the Republic of South Africa?

If the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer that question, he must give me notice and put it in on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Uruguay, following the resignation of President Bordaberry.

Our relations with Uruguay continue to be good.

Has my hon. Friend seen the horrifying reports published by Amnesty International and other organisa- tions about political murder, torture and other abuses of human rights in Uruguay recently? Has he heard of the murder of prominent Uruguayan citizens in Argentina? Will he express to the Uruguayan authorities the deep concern of this country about the sad deterioration in the observation of decent standards of human rights which used to be characteristic of that country?

I have read the Amnesty report. We deplore abuses of human rights such as those alleged by Amnesty International, and we are consulting our EEC partners to see what representations we can make.

Is my hon. Friend aware that about a month ago my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and I saw two Uruguayan citizens who had a son and a daughter in Argentina? Is he aware that they asked us to get them out of that country but that they were murdered that weekend? Did he know that the Whitelaw couple dared not go back to the tyranny in Uruguay because they would have been murdered? Is he aware that we feel deeply about the brutalities in Uruguay, which are equally as deplorable as those under Pinochet in Chile?

I appreciate the feelings and sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, particularly about the case to which he referred. I am fully aware of the details of that case. I hope that there may be some changes in the attitude of the new Government, and we look forward with interest to seeing how the new Government intend to tackle the problem of human rights.

Why is murder in Uruguay so much more deplorable than murder in Cambodia?

It is not. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's double standards are now showing. [Interruption.]

Order.

Is it not incredible that, when faced with disaster, murder and torture, all that Conservative Members want to do is to draw analogies in bestiality between totalitarian States throughout the world? Cannot they for once get hold of the fact that democratically elected representatives should be against all murder, all outrage and all torture? We should not give a damn who governs the country.

The double standards are yours.

I endorse my hon. Friend's sentiments. Such condemnation should be general. We do not have double standards. Comments by hon. Members opposite who wish to score party points are reprehensible in view of the situation which many countries' citizens face.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) to smear Labour Members by suggesting that we are not concerned about abuses of human rights in the Soviet Union and Cambodia, when I made clear in a supplementary question on the Question about Cambodia that I deplored the atrocities there? Is it in order for hon. Members to get away with smears of that sort?

There has been a growing tendency for some hon. Members to shout across the Floor at each other in a way that adds nothing to argument and nothing to the dignity of the House. I know of no monopoly of virtue in this House. We had better leave the matter there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received on the Select Committee's report on EEC direct elections; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue of direct elections formed no part of the referendum campaign? Will he further accept that a Select Committee, packed with Eurofanatics and certain to recommend the holding of direct elections at the earliest possible moment further to consolidate our entry into this lunatic organisation, is no substitute for an appeal to the British people on the basis of either direct elections to the European Assembly and the ending of Parliament as we know it or refusal to accept direct elections?

No, Sir, I do not accept any of the assumptions underlying that supplementary question. I look forward to the debate on Friday, when my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to elaborate his views and I shall have time for a proper rebuttal of them.

Am I right in assuming that included in the plebiscite held on our adherence to the Treaty of Rome was an agreement by the United Kingdom in due course to take part in direct elections?

Various people have interpreted it in various ways. It is clear that the view of the House will decide all these issues. We have already had an extensive debate on direct elections, and that debate will continue on Friday when we shall discuss the Select Committee's report.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a useful exercise, in contemplating the prospect of direct elections to the European Assembly, if we first made up our minds as a House what the Assembly is intended to do and allowed that consideration to dictate whether we would sit, how many Members we would send and the consequent constitutional effects which that would have on the United Kingdom?

The powers of the Assembly are clearly defined in the Treaty of Rome. Some of us have no difficulty in understanding what those powers are. It is not at present our intention to seek an extension of the powers of the European Assembly.

Will the motion before the House on Friday be such as to enable the House to take a decision on this matter, as the Minister suggested?

I suggested that the debate on Friday would give hon. Members the opportunity to present their views on the Select Committee's report, and I look forward to hearing the right hon. Gentleman's speech on that occasion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions took place at the recent meeting of EEC Ministers on European defence; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the defence of the European Community.

None of the recent meetings of EEC Ministers has discussed defence. Defence is not mentioned in the Treaty of Rome and the defence of Europe rests, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, firmly upon the North Atlantic Alliance.

If Her Majesty's Government wish the Community to be consolidated and to succeed, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the integration and strengthening of the defence of the Community is vital?

No, Sir. There are substantial arguments against that, not least the practical argument of the impossibility of organising a defence community which includes two countries whose relationships with NATO are not such as to enable them to play a full part in the Alliance. There are also arguments against it in principle. If the hon. Gentleman does not share those arguments with me, I hope he will accept that, while France remains in her present relationship with the Alliance and the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the NATO Alliance, the idea that progress can be made is pie in the sky.

As my right hon. Friend rightly points out, defence is a matter for NATO, not for the EEC. Has he any indication that the French Government will show themselves to be good Europeans and resume full activity in NATO?

My right hon. Friend redefines a "good European" from time to time, depending on his supplementary question. The idea that playing a part in an integrated structure of NATO makes one a good European is probably not an argument which is totally attractive in Washington.

Does the Minister agree that it is impossible to separate defence and industrial policy, that the impact of large defence projects, especially in aviation and weaponry, makes it impossible to separate them, and that, as the European Parliament has shown, the European Community has to become involved in defence sooner or later, preferably sooner?

If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is making the classical European mistake of constructing constitutions in theory rather than responding to life in practice. Life in practice demonstrates that the sort of defence which is necessary for Europe and the partnership of the European Powers and North America is best carried out in NATO and not within an extended and changed EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations have taken place within the EEC towards establishing a closer degree of co-operation in the development of external broadcasting services.

None, Sir.

Is not the BBC, faced with a rapid expansion in external broadcasting by other countries, seriously concerned about maintaining and protecting the level of its services? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a closer degree of co-operation within the Community would be of benefit, particularly in respect of capital expenditure and the development of transmitters and expensive overseas relay stations?

Co-operation on these aspects is a matter for the broadcasting organisations. The BBC external services have close links with their counterparts in other member countries of the EEC.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further plans he has to meet EEC Foreign Ministers.

I shall next meet my EEC colleagues at the European Council meeting in Brussels on 12th and 13th July.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the creation of international organisations tends to encourage the establishment of an especially privileged class of persons who receive much higher salaries and pay much lower taxes than do the majority of citizens? Will he tell the other Foreign Ministers that it would be intolerable if the creation of a directly-elected Assembly allowed Members of that Assembly to receive higher salaries and pay less tax than did the Members of national assemblies and that it would be intolerable if national assemblies did not exercise control over these matters?

National assemblies will exercise a great deal of control over the creation of a directly-elected Assembly, because they will have to pass legislation to make it possible. No doubt it will be open to the hon. Gentleman to put down amendments concerning remuneration and other matters when that legislation is before the House. I am open to correction, but I think that international servants of all kinds, not simply EEC servants, as distinct from those elected to an Assembly, receive salaries free of tax, and that is a necessary established international custom.

As the meeting next week will again be discussing direct elections, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be an opportunity to discuss, debate and approve or otherwise any convention or agreement which may be made and that it will be made clear at the meeting that any agreement will be subject to the will of the House, apart from the legislation in Bill form?

I have said so at every Question Time and in reply to the previous supplementary question. There can be no direct elections in this country until the House has passed the necessary legislation. It has absolute control.

When the Minister meets his EEC colleagues, will he ensure that Scotland gets no less representation under the system of direct elections than do nations of a similar size, such as Denmark?

Scotland must and will receive the proper representation consistent with its position as a nation within the United Kingdom.

In view of what my right hon. Friend said in reply to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), will he give an assurance that the Bill which the Government bring forward to enable direct elections to be held will be drafted in such a way—and that the Long Title will be drafted in such a way—as to provide that amendments on the points raised by the hon. Member for Faversham will be in order?

My hon. Friend knows that it is not possible for me to give such precise assurances about legislation at this time. I give him the assurance that I have given on previous occasions about European legislation. It would clearly be intolerable if the House were not given the opportunity to discuss certain issues. That means that the House must be given the widest, fullest and freest opportunity to discuss all the ramifications of direct elections.

Does the Minister agree that, as we put more of our economic and, in due course, financial affairs together among the Nine in Europe, it will become increasingly important to have a joint foreign policy to promote and protect them? Does he agree that, as that progresses, foreign policy cannot be separated entirely from defence and that even within the framework of NATO there will be a need for increasing consultation among the Nine, or as many as are prepared to consult, on defence as well as foreign policy?

I do not think that the description joint "or" "common" foreign policy is the most appropriate. Within the community there is a mutual interest in co-ordinating national foreign policies when that is possible. That has achieved a great deal of success over the last two years, but equally during that time there have been a number of occasions when one nation or another believed that its interests lay in not adopting a communally-decided attitude to external affairs. That will continue for a long time.

asked the hon. Member for Kingswood, representing the Church Commissioners, how many of the houses, shops and flats owned by the commissioners in Greater London have been demolished within the period 1965 to 1975; how many have been replaced by offices; and if he will make a statement as to whether it is the future policy of the commissioners to replace existing houses, shops and flats with similar buildings.

I regret that the comprehensive statistical information requested is not readily available. As to their future policy, the commissioners expect to be carrying out only a strictly limited amount of redevelopment in the foreseeable future. Each such scheme needs to be considered on its individual merits and in the light of the economic, environmental and planning factors relevant in the particular case. If my hon. Friend is, concerned about any specific cases relating to his constituency, I shall be pleased to do all I can to help him.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a remarkable relevation that the Church does not know how many houses it has demolished? [An HON. MEMBER: "All will be revealed."] is it not the view of the Church that it should make as much money as it can to augment Church funds, irrespective of the number of shops and houses it has to demolish to make way for the building of this lucrative property to achieve a profitable return? Should not the Church accept its responsibilities along with the Greater London Council and the London boroughs to ensure that it does not demolish shops and houses to build office blocks in pursuit of that policy?

The statistical information was not available because the Question was lodged with us only on Monday and we were not given the two weeks' notice that is necessary. Regarding the information which my hon. Friend requires, we will co-operate with those concerned and certainly with the Greater London Council in working out what is best for the area as a whole. We will take into account the economic, environmental and planning factors that are relevant in each case.

Although the Church has important social duties concerning housing and agriculture—I believe that it has 7,000 houses in London with rents of less than £500 a year—does it not also have a duty to augment the pay of clergymen, which at present is very bad?

As I told the hon. Gentleman with in the last fortnight, we have an obligation to ensure that we augment the stipends of the clergy in the Church of England. That is an increasing problem for us and we must consider it because it is the bread and butter of our policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in the last few years the Church Commissioners have been involved in property arrangements which have caused severe misery to tenants in Finsbury, in my constituency? What changes have there been in the policy of the commissioners concerning their residential property involvement in recent years?

Since I became Second Church Estates Commissioner in December 1974 I have been able, in conjunction with hon. Members, to answer questions and to get these matters put right. There is no doubt that the commissioners will have problems to overcome in the future, and we shall be prepared to co-operate with any hon. Members who make representations to us.

Can the hon. Gentleman remember whether he voted with the Government against a Conservative amendment to the Development Land Tax Bill which suggested that there should be exemption for churches which wish to sell land for development to meet their future needs?

That is not the subject of the Question.