asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Great Britain's relations with Uganda, particularly on the position of British subjects there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on relations with Uganda.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to suspend diplomatic relations with Uganda.

I have now considered the future of our relations with Uganda. These relations have a long and troubled history. The events of recent weeks have again demonstrated that it is not possible for our High Commission effectively to discharge its normal duties. Two members of the High Commission have been expelled for no good or adequate reason.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement. I consider that this is the right and sensible thing to do in the circumstances. Is there anything further that the right hon. Gentleman can say about Mrs. Dora Bloch? I wish to observe his request that we should exercise moderation in our remarks. Nevertheless, does he agree that the movement of Ugandan troops to the Kenyan border is extremely alarming? Has any request been received from the Kenyan Government for assistance, and in view of our great interest in this area what information has he given to the Kenyan Government?

Sadly, I have nothing to add to the statement made 16 days ago by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the fate of Mrs. Bloch. In the meantime the High Commission has pursued further inquiries, but it is obvious that they will get nowhere without the co-operation of the Uganda Government and there is no sign that this has been, is or will be forthcoming. We have had no statement of the precise situation on the Kenyan border. Kenya has traditionally bought most of its arms supplies from this country. We have a defence agreement with the Kenyan Government and we propose to continue it.

There would appear to be no alternative to taking the step which the Foreign Secretary has announced today. While it is regrettable that relations with a Commonwealth country should be broken off, no one could have given greater provocation to us than President Amin. Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to the work of the diplomats in the British High Commission in Kampala who have done so much to help the family of Mrs. Bloch, British residents still in Uganda, and those who have taken the High Commission's advice to get out?

I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend's opening remarks. I think it is true, as I understand it from a large number of hon. Members, that the family of Mrs. Bloch accept that everything possible was done by the Government. I would like to pay tribute to successive British members of the High Commission in Kampala who have carried out their duties, and will do so to the last moment, in circumstances of grave and serious danger.

On this side of the House we entirely support the action of the Foreign Secretary, and we wish to associate ourselves with the tributes to the British High Commission staff in Kampala.

While welcoming what my right hon. Friend has said, may I ask him whether other Commonwealth Governments were consulted before the decision was taken? What will happen to the aid which is now given by the Government to Uganda? Also, can my right hon. Friend tell us where General Amin is at the moment?

I have nothing further to tell the House on the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I did not have widespread multilateral consultations on this issue, because I do not think that that is the right way to approach it. It is a bilateral issue between the United Kingdom and Uganda, and it should be dealt with in that manner.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary's statement on behalf of the relatives of Mrs. Bloch who live in my constituency. I understand that there is an imbalance of trade between this country and Uganda which between January and June this year was running at the rate of about £14½5 million. Will this imbalance continue in the light of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and is it in this country's interests that it should do so?

The hon. Member is quite right about his facts. Last year we exported about £7 million worth to and imported about £23 million worth from Uganda. There is thus an imbalance in Uganda's favour. As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, I examined this position very carefully. Nothing would be gained by our trying to reduce the minuscule £7 million of exports. There is a complicating factor in the question of imports, should we wish to take action in that direction. It is that virtually all these imports, most of which are of coffee, are governed by the Lomé Convention. It would be difficult to do anything without being in breach of that convention. Apart from that, Uganda could achieve the same net result by re-exports going through another country, so that although the facts are as stated by the hon. Gentleman they do not open up any opportunity for effective action.

We accept the inevitability of the right hon. Gentleman's statement and hope for a return of better days to that unhappy country. Will the Secretary of State pay a tribute to the missionaries and those who have given long service to Uganda and who intend to remain to serve the Ugandan people? Now that we have broken off diplomatic relations, will he arrange for stricter checks to be made on the sort of equipment we are supplying to the Uganda Government?

I have not had the privilege, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, of meeting these missionaries who are so determined to stay in Uganda in spite of the risks and provocations. I strongly echo that tribute. On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I think I know what he has in mind, and since hearing from him on the subject I am looking very carefully at the case again.

Is it not a curious reflection on the illogicality of our citizenship law that General Amin is a British subject? More seriously, will my right hon. Friend say whether the British interests section attached to the French Embassy will have full diplomatic immunity, and will that section be composed of United Kingdom-based staff?

On the first point, I am not expert enough either to assent to or dissent from the remarks my hon. Friend has made and which sounded extremely plausible to me. On the second point, the British interests section will have diplomatic immunity.

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

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is very grave concern that several years after the evacuation of Diego Garcia not a penny of the money paid to the Mauritius Government has been handed over to the islanders? What was in the report submitted to my right hon. Friend by Mr. Prosser on this matter? Is my hon. Friend prepared to stand by the assurance given to me last February in a letter that the facilities at Diego Garcia will not permit the operation of B52 bombers?

We have felt concern on the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and that is why we support Mr. Prosser's mission and report. The report, however, is to the Mauritius Government, not to us. Therefore, it is first and foremost for the Mauritius Government to respond and to publish it if they wish. I can confirm that B52 bombers will not be used in Diego Garcia.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under the Lomé Convention Mauritius sends this country about one-third of our sugar cane requirements, and that under the existing terms of the convention the Government have to face difficult choices if there is a shortfall in the crop? Will he bear this in mind at the renegotiation of the convention in 1982, and will he consult the Mauritius Government on the matter?

We will consult and consider all the issues arising from the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.

May we have a clear statement that the plight of the Diego Garcians in Mauritius is no fault of the British Government and that it is much more a Mauritian responsibility than ours?

We have not been responsible for the welfare of the Diego Garcians since they went to Mauritius. The amount of money paid was a full and final settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will undertake to review the operation of the 1947 agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States of America on communications monitoring.

It is the long-established practice of this House that the Government do not comment on matters of this kind.

I do not think I can honestly say that I am grateful for that answer, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the American National Security Agency has been using its four communications facilities in this country —at Edzell in Scotland, at Chicksands, at Cheltenham and in Hampshire—to monitor the communications of British commercial organisations, in violation of the secret 1947 agreement, and to relay them to their American competitors? Will he assure the House that as a matter of urgency he will undertake discussions with the Secretary of State concerning this fact, which has been revealed by a former employee of the agency, with a view to ending this covert subversion of British economic interests?

I have nothing to add to my original reply, which should in no way be taken as endorsing any of the facts that my hon. Friend purports to give to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the USSR the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas and the reuniting of families, with particular reference to Ida Nudel, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families, such as the case of Ida Nudel, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics the issue of exit visas for the reuniting of families in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement, he will request the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to grant exit visas to those people wishing to be reunited with their families in other parts of the world.

Is my hon. Friend aware that some of us feel that it is most important that we and the Government, even if they have to do it in private, should make perfectly clear to the Soviet authorities our concern about cases like that of Mrs. Nudel, who wishes to join her husband and her family in Israel? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the Soviet authorities' implementation of the Helsinki Agreement when they continue to harass citizens whose only desire is to join their families outside the USSR?

There can be no doubt that we shall not be satisfied until all the provisions of the Final Act have been put into effect by all the signatory States. Any proper assessment must await the 1977 review conference. It would not be helpful to enter into detailed discussion of individual cases. We believe that progress is more likely to come from private representations than from public complaints. The Soviet Government can be in no doubt about the strength of feeling which Ida Nudel's case has rightly aroused in this country.

Does not the Minister recognise that both the House and the Government have a moral obligation to make clear to the USSR the strength of feeling of individual Members about the failure of the Soviet Union to implement the Helsinki Agreement? Is he aware that letters sent by Members of this House to prisoners of conscience in the USSR, even when written in Russian, are sent back directly to the Member with no reason given by the Soviet Embassy?

We shall not be satisfied until all the signatory States have observed all the requirements of the Final Act. The Soviet authorities fully understand the strength of feeling of hon. Members, a feeling which goes further than this House. That feeling has been made abundantly clear to the Soviet authorities, and it will continue to be made clear to them as long as we think that there are cases in which that is necessary.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Ida Nudel has applied for an exit visa every year since 1971, each application having been refused, and that she has recently been told not to apply again until 1980 although she wants to rejoin her family? Does this not make a mockery of the Soviet signature on the Helsinki Agreement?

I am fully aware of that, and there has been detailed discussion of the Ida Nudel case. Our strength of feeling has been made clear to the Soviet authorities and we shall continue to press the case. There can be no doubt that the strength of feeling has been underlined on each and every occasion. It has been made clear that we shall not be satisfied until all the requirements have been observed.

To what extent have the Soviet Government implemented the letter or spirit of any part of the Helsinki Agreement?

The Soviet Government have begun to apply the Final Act's provisions in a number of respects. A note detailing the action they have taken appeared in Hansard of 10th March. The main subsequent development has been the Soviet notification of a second military manoeuvre which took place from 14th to 18th June in the Leningrad military district.

What test does my hon. Friend's Department apply before making known to a signatory to the agreement that it is in breach of its provisions? Instead of waiting for another 12 months, will he on this first anniversary of the Helsinki Agreement refer to the United Nations any such breach in the provisions and ask them to monitor the agreement to ensure that it becomes a living reality for all people and not only for this one particular family?

I share the strength of feeling that leads my hon. Friend to make that suggestion. As regards breaches of the Helsinki Agreement, at present we should be concentrating on how we propose to deal with the review conference in Belgrade next year. As that conference is about a year away, it would be premature for us now to be determining our negotiating position, but I fully note the strength of feeling and concern that leads my hon. Friend to make the suggestion that she has put forward.

Does not Basket III of the Helsinki Agreement include the free movement of people across the Iron Curtain? How can credence be given to the good will of the Russian Government as long as the Berlin Wall and the death strip between East and West Germany remain?

I am sure that that kind of approach will give comfort to certain people, and presumably to the Leader of the Opposition in the speech that we all read she is about to make. I do not think that that kind of approach is particularly helpful. What we are seeking to do through the process of detente is to get to a situation where we can make sure that all the signatory nations observe all the requirements of the Final Act, but to start challenging each other in that contentious language is not particularly helpful.

Without wishing to indulge in too much sabre rattling, may I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the Soviet authorities our deep distaste of the treatment of many of their own citizens contrary to the spirit of the Helsinki Agreement, especially Mr. Moroz and Mr. Bukovsky, who have been incarcerated in mental hospitals and who may be dead before the review of the Helsinki Agreement takes place in Belgrade in 1977?

We do not need pushing to make representations about those particular cases. The representations have already been made. My hon. Friend can rest assured that the Government will continue to take every opportunity of pressing those cases whenever opportunities arise.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's strange indignation following the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), does he disagree with the substance of my hon. Friend's question about the Berlin Wall?

I suggest that at the moment it would be in the interests of all of us who wish to see the policy of detente working to use more temperate language when describing the problems that we seek to overcome.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland in relation to deep-sea fishing off the Icelandic coast.

As I told the House on 7th June, and as the agreement with Iceland makes plain, negotiations with Iceland on a long-term agreement will be undertaken by the EEC. We have urged the Commission to produce a draft negotiating mandate as soon as possible, and I expect this to be considered immediately after the holiday break.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer but I ask him not to rely too much on the EEC reaching an agreed negotiating position by 2nd December in view of the deep differences that at the moment exist between member nations. With that in mind, and with the possibility of there being a vacuum after 2nd December, will the Foreign Secretary be prepared to maintain British fishing rights in that area in whatever way is necessary?

I believe that the hon. Gentleman has just come back from Reykjavik and is extremely well informed on these matters. As for the EEC negotiating position, I am optimistic that that can be reached in September. I saw the Commissioner responsible for these matters only the day before yesterday. I am relatively optimistic about that. Whether that will in turn lead to an agreement between the Community and Iceland is a much more uncertain matter. Obviously there must be reservations about how likely it is that we shall reach a satisfactory agreement. I should not like to speculate on the hypothetical situation that will arise if on 2nd Decem- ber no agreement has been reached. It will be a very unpleasant situation.

Does the accurate terminology of the right hon. Gentleman's reply confirm that membership of the Community deprived this country of the status of an independent nation and the right to negotiate as one nation with another? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish." Just listen to the answer.

I cannot accept the suggestion that accuracy of language necessarily leads to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to draw. The fact is that we all had our votes in the referendum one way or the other. That decision, rightly or wrongly, was taken. That limited a decision on the common fisheries policy. That policy is a fact. That means that this country now has to make the best that it possibly can of the task of revising the policy in our own national interests.

In view of the threat from the Cuban fleet and other large fishing fleets, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that British limits are extended to 200 miles before the conclusion of a final agreement with Iceland?

I believe that the Cuban story greatly reinforces the case for a 200-mile limit. Ideally we would do that at the same time as it is agreed at the Law of the Sea Conference. However, that looks increasingly unlikely. We had the declaration of intent made at the meeting of the Council of Ministers only yesterday morning. We hope that with the EEC we can all do it conjointly, but if there is any unnecessary delay as far as the Community is concerned we shall not have the slightest hesitation in taking action unilaterally. We are now preparing legislation to make that possible if it is necessary.

Following the agreement with Iceland on fisheries, will the right hon. Gentleman have talks with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to prevent the landing of Icelandic fish at Grimsby?

I have always been fairly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his solicitude for my constituents. However, I think that they still prefer to look to me rather than to him for their protection. I continually have meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the point that the hon. Gentleman has made is something about which we often exchange views.

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

We continue to be concerned about the problems of Southern Africa and will make every effort to promote solutions to them. As far as Rhodesia is concerned, there is a Question down for answer later this afternoon.

As the Soviet Union and Cuba stand to gain most from the growing violence in Rhodesia, will the Minister and the British Government make it absolutely clear to the black and white Rhodesians over the coming weeks that, if they continue on this course of mutual destruction and fail to agree on a sensible transition to independence, they will prevent the West, led by Britain, from coming to their help and facilitating a sensible transitional period?

We shall continue to make it clear that the best solution to the problem is a rapid move to majority rule in accordance with the wishes of the House and, I think, of the majority of people.

Given that the armed forces of Mozambique are in warfare with the rebel forces in Rhodesia, that the forces of South Africa are attacking Zambian territory and that there is guerrilla war in Namibia, will the Government please give up the absurd pretence in the Security Council that the situation in Southern Africa is not a threat to peace?

We do not think that the Chapter 7 declaration which is implied in my hon. Friend's question is valid at the moment. We shall continue to uphold that position. I accept what my hon. Friend has said about the growing increase in violence. The only way to stop it is to go to the root cause—the obdurance of Mr. Smith in Rhodesia.

What is the Government's attitude to the forthcoming independence of the Transkei? Will the Government be represented at the independence celebrations in October, and will their attitude depend in any way on the result of elections in September? Will the Government or the United Nations have representatives at the elections?

The traditional criteria used in deciding whether to recognise an independent new Government or State will be applied to the Transkei, but, as my predecessor said, we do not think that on present evidence we should recognise Transkei.

Will my hon. Friend be a little more forthcoming and emphasise that the cynical attitude of the South African Government in establishing so-called independent States is seen as a cynical policy and that in no sense could these States be regarded as economically or politically independent? Would it not be a great service to the people struggling for majority rule in Africa if the Government made plain now that they will not recognise the Transkei under any circumstances?

We shall judge this issue on the traditional criteria, but we feel that there is strong evidence to suggest that we should not recognise the Transkei.

Can the Minister confirm or deny that Mozambique troops have taken the offensive by crossing into Rhodesia? If they are pursuing a policy of solution by violence rather than by imposing sanctions and economic pressure, will the Government reconsider their decision to give aid to Mozambique?

I have seen reports but have not yet had confirmation in detail or any evidence to confirm that there is Frelimo activity in Rhodesia. However, we have repeatedly stated that we do not believe that external forces should be used to solve the problems of Rhodesia and Namibia and the other standing problems in Southern Africa. Aid to Mozambique is a separate question which we have repeatedly defended in the House and which has been supported by Commonwealth Governments, including New Zealand, Australia and others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the Turkish Government are abiding by the 1975 Vienna Agreements on Cyprus.

The Turkish Government were not a direct party to the understandings reached between the Cypriot communities at the intercommunal talks held in Vienna. We hope that those talks will soon he resumed and that both parties will make a constructive contribution.

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties, which he has explained to me, but would he not agree that the policy of the Turks looks increasingly like annexation and that this would be against international law? Will he consider the possibility of a new initiative —for instance, a visit by a British or NATO mission into the Turkish area in northern Cyprus to investigate the position of the Greek Cypriots and British citizens there?

I have told the House on many occasions and am glad to repeat it today that, if we believed that progress could be made either unilaterally through a British initiative or through an initiative that we could encourage in the Commonwealth, the EEC or any other body, we should be happy to promote it. It remains our view, however, that the best chance of progress is to reconstitute the intercommunal talks and for them to take place in a meaningful way with matters of substance on the agenda. That is also the view of Turkey and Greece, and we must work to that end.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that tension between Greece and Turkey is now more serious than at any time since the war? Is he aware that simply repeating the same answer Question Time after Question Time is not good enough in view of our particular responsibilities to Cyprus? Has he had any discussions with his EEC colleagues about methods of solving this problem?

I repeat the answer week after week because it seems to be right. In reply to my hon. Friend's second question, this matter was raised yesterday afternoon during the political co-operation discussions between the Community and the Greek Government. Discussion took place not only between EEC Foreign Ministers but also with a senior member of the Greek Cabinet, who shared my view rather than that of my hon. Friend.

Why do not the Government take a far more robust attitude to the importing of Turkish peasants from the mainland into Northern Cyprus? Does not such action undermine the talks on the future of the island?

We have expressed our strong disapproval of Turkish resettlement of the northern part of the island on several occasions, and I shall continue to express it as robustly as the hon. Member cares it to be expressed. But our main aim must be to press, in whatever way we can, for an overall solution, and we must use our best endeavours to make the intercommunal talks work.

Has my right hon. Friend had any recent conversations with Commonwealth countries with a view to getting an early resumption of the intercommunal talks?

We have had conversations at various levels with all parties who seem likely to be able to promote that end. I believe that the talks will be resumed sooner or later and that the parties will begin to talk about material matters. I understand the House's regret and frustration that this tragic affair has gone on for so long, but it is our judgment that the only possible solution can come from those talks.

I recognise that any major new initiative will probably have to await the American presidential elections, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is grave concern that in the meantime the situation will get much worse with the expulsion of Greeks and the arrival of Turks? Is there no way, either through the EEC or the United Nations, to bring pressure on the Turks to ensure that this does not continue?

There is not much pressure which can be brought on the Turks which would provide a solution. One of my hon. Friends recommended some months ago that such pressure should be brought to bear, and the American Administration tried to bring it to bear. It did not work or help to make any progress in the talks about a solution. I do not believe that pressure or condemnation by this country will bring a solution.

Has any progress been made with the Turkish Government on the claims for loss and damage submitted by United Kingdom citizens who have been waiting patiently for more than two years for recompense for the outrages they suffered as a result of the Turkish invasion?

There has been a deplorable lack of progress in this area. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary made representations to the Turkish Government some weeks ago and will continue to press hard on this matter. I regret that I cannot tell the House and my hon. Friend that progress is being made at the speed which is essential.

I do not wish to apportion blame to the Greek or the Turkish community in Cyprus, but would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that since 1960 it has been shown that it is impossible for those communities to live together other than within a federated Cypriot State? Will he press for that solution in the long term?

The hon. Gentleman asks me to interpret history and to endorse the decision that he believes history has brought about. I do not believe that this is the way to reach a solution. Our position is that we shall support whatever form of future constitution the people of Cyprus want and that we shall provide whatever support they need to bring about that constitution. Our attempts to get the talks going will not be facilitated if I express the Government's view on which solution is preferable.

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

No, Sir.

Has the attention of the Foreign Secretary been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 513 about cheap suits from Taiwan? Is he aware that if he went to Taiwan he could buy a tail coat for £2·10 and then cease to insult the Heads of States of two continents?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has read the Early Day Motion avidly. The hon. Gentleman will know that action was taken in 1975 through the EEC, which unilaterally imposed restrictions on a wide range of textile products from Taiwan.

Since one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend will not be going to Taiwan is presumably better relations with China, may I ask whether those relations with the mainland are resulting in any agreement on opportunities for British Sinologists to spend long study periods in China?

I cannot at this stage confirm the point, but if my hon. Friend wishes to table a specific Question about it I shall try to answer it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I welcome the statement that his right hon. Friend does not intend to visit Taiwan? However, would he care to make a statement regarding the activities of the Taiwanese Government within Hong Kong? Is he aware that there is considerable concern about the activities of KMT people within Hong Kong? Will he let the House know his views about this?

I shall certainly take note of that point. I do not have any details about it.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the quota restrictions that the Government have imposed on textiles from Taiwan are inadequate? Does he further agree that it is the duty of the British Government to try to persuade the Taiwanese Government to stop the gross exploitation by capitalism in that country, so that working people in Taiwan have at least decent wage levels and the standards that working people enjoy in this country? The British textile industry does not mind competition, but it objects to gross exploitation and unfair competition.

I doubt whether we have very much influence on the domestic economic policy of Taiwan. However, we are certainly keeping the situation regarding the importation of cheap tex tiles under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he can announce the terms of reference for the review of the staffing, structure and political role of the EEC Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement setting out the terms of reference for the proposed review of the role of the EEC Commission to be carried out by the next President of that institution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any proposals for restructuring the organisation of the Common Market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the terms of reference for the proposed review of the role, staffing and structure of the EEC Commission.

At the European Council meeting on 12th and 13th July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister suggested that the new President of the Commission might be invited to undertake a review of the staffing, the structure and the organisation of the Commission. This suggestion, which arose out of the discussion, was welcomed and my right hon. Friend was asked to prepare terms of reference for consideration at the next meeting of the European Council.

How much independence should be allowed to EEC Commissioners in the conduct of their portfolios, given the collegiate role prescribed for the Commission in the Treaty of Rome? Does the setting up of the review imply that the Government's thinking is moving away from this vast concept?

No, Sir. I do not think that the setting up of the review—which must be some way away; we still do not have any terms of reference agreed—implies any altered view on the part of the Government. The question raised by the hon. Gentleman about the arguments between a collegiate system, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a series of independent Commissioners with independent portfolios could easily be covered by the terms of reference and could form the subject of an extremely interesting discussion.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us, including myself, think it somewhat obscene for members of the British Government to take jobs at an alleged £60,000 per year, tax-free, when they are alleged to be all in favour of a pay and prices policy—except when it affects them—and when we know that British taxpayers have to pay this, if only in part?

The trouble is that we all find different things obscene. My own view is that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make an outstandingly able President of the Commission.

Yes, at £60,000 a year he ought to. I hope that he does better than he has done as Home Secretary.

I have no detailed knowledge of what financial arrangements he will make, but I am sure that they will be made within a proper framework of prudence and principle.

May we take it from the right hon. Gentleman's first reply to this group of Questions that his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and himself still have not worked out exactly what the terms of reference might be for such a review? If that is so, will he at least give some indication of whether this is really no more than a cosmetic exercise or whether it really is the fundamental review that some of us thought might be the case from the original remarks of his right hon. Friend?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has certainly not yet worked out the proposed terms of reference in detail. I think that he intends the review to be a major one—not so much of the political role of the Commission, which is something that falls to be discussed under the aegis of the Tindemans discussions at this stage, but as to staffing, structure and organisation. The initiative taken by the Prime Minister does not betoken any lack of confidence in Signor Ortoli or any of the present members of the Commission, but I think that at any time it is proper to conduct a reorganisation of this kind and that it is a worthwhile thing to do.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 80,000 tons of home-produced food is now being withheld from the open market under EEC rules, including 30,000 tons of butter, that the British beef mountain reached 14,000 tons by the end of June, and that stored beef is accumulating faster than it is being sold? [An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am not reading. Stored beef is accumulating faster than it is being sold. For how long are we to participate in this mad charade?

I found that an extremely interesting question but not one strictly relevant to the Questions under discussion.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was relevant to Question No. 46.

As the Dutch Foreign Minister, who is the President-in-Office of the Council of Ministers, said in his speech to the European Assembly on 7th July that the Common Market is stagnating, declining, sterile, ineffective and disintegrating, and that the structure is in an advanced state of erosion—those were his views, and I think that I share them —is it not quite absurd that we should now be proceeding to direct elections to a Community in that state before the whole thing is restructured, if it ever can be? Will not the direct elections really be no more than—I borrow an expression from my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton (Mr. Forman)—merely another daub of cosmetic upon an already withering bureaucracy on the Continent?

The next Question but one is on the subject of direct elections.

Under the present structure, who is able to protest about the aid to be given by the EEC to Uganda? Will my right hon. Friend give details of this?

Aid to Uganda and relations between the EEC and Uganda consist of two aspects. One is the relations through the Lomé Convention, under which, as the House knows Uganda is only one of a large number of countries that benefit from the favourable trading arrangements. This is a multilateral and not a bilateral agreement with Uganda. The other aspect of the matter is that the European Development Council has recently sent a team to Uganda to consider the possibility in Uganda of development aid. This was an EEC initiative and not a British one. I have taken the view that at present I am not prepared to take the initiative in trying to call off this operation, although it is something that I shall certainly keep under review.

Reverting to the original terms of the Question, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I agree with his answer about the need for reviews of this kind? Certainly there is evidence to suggest that overstaffing exists. However, if the right hon. Gentleman holds that opinion, does he not agree that as the Commission has a smaller staff than the Scottish Office, and smaller too, I believe, even than that of Harrods, this shows the necessity for a much greater review of staffing levels in the British Civil Service than in Europe?

I was briefed on the subject of the Scottish Office, but my brief included no reference to Harrods. However, if this suggests overstaffing on the part of the British Civil Service, it also suggests overstaffing on the part of British private enterprise concerns.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the EEC Commissioner with responsibility for regional development.

My right hon. Friend has at present no firm plans for a meeting with Mr. George Thomson but he expects to meet him again soon in the course of Community business. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office held discussions with him on 16th July in Edinburgh.

After the establishment of the Scottish Assembly, will the Minister ensure that the regional funds allocated by the EEC for industrial projects in Scotland are paid directly to the Scottish Assembly without any intervention by Westminster whatsoever?

I think that the hon. Gentleman had better put down Questions about the establishment of the Scottish Assembly to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise, and can he say to the House, that considerable aid is being given to Scotland through the regional fund as a direct result of the activities of Mr. George Thomson, who knows much more than any Member of the Scottish National Party about the problems of Scotland? Will my right hon. Friend therefore say what is the future of George Thomson, because it is important that we have a British Commissioner who is responsible for regional development since it is Britain which has the best regional aid policy in the whole of Europe?

I certainly note and understand my hon. Friend's point about the necessity for Great Britain to keep a very close and intimate watch on the Community's regional policy. My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been substantial benefits for Scotland in all that Mr. George Thomson has done, and I am happy to join him in the tribute to George Thomson's work in the Community since he went there three years ago.

When he next meets the EEC Commissioner, will the Minister undertake to discuss with him the question of the law in regard to mercenary activity? If he has read, as I hope he has, the indictment, evidence and verdict of the Angolan so-called court, he will see that there are citizens of this country, and maybe of Europe, who are in prison for crimes which the civil code under which they were tried does not even recognise?

I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that has nothing to do with this Question.

Could not we just know what the Foreign Office thinks about the cost-effectiveness of the Scottish Office?

It is about as cost-effective as Harrods.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps he is planning to implement the decision reached by the Heads of Government summit on 12th July on direct elections to the European Parliament.

The European Council took a decision on the question of the number and distribution of seats and asked Foreign Ministers to settle the outstanding issues. The Foreign Affairs Council has done a good deal of work on these issues at its meetings this month and will return to the question at its next meeting in September.

While appreciating that the Foreign Secretary has left the Chamber because this Question is too difficult for him to handle, may I ask the Minister of State to explain why he delayed the signing of the convention on direct elections at the Council of Ministers? Can he say when the convention will be signed?

I only wish that the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was true. As regards the serious part of it, the position is that the European Council took a decision which the British Government were prepared to endorse at the subsequent Foreign Affairs Council. Although that decision was apparently endorsed by all the Heads of Government and the President of France, it was not acceptable to all Foreign Ministers. A new instrument had to be prepared which it was hoped would be a compromise acceptable to all the Nine. The British Government are examining the new proposals, and until we have done so it is not possible to say whether it meets with our approval or the date when we will be ready to sign.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state the nature of the instrument which he has under consideration? Is it a draft convention or some other form of EEC instrument?

It is some other form of EEC instrument, but on British suggestions it has been amended in a number of ways and the right hon. Gentleman will find that it looks remarkably like a convention.

Is it not somewhat pathetic that the Prime Minister had to announce that, alone of all the Nine, Britain and Denmark were incapable of doing anything so practical and democratic as moving to direct elections by 1978 and that we would still have to nominate? Is he aware that the reason that was given was lack of parliamentary time, and that that was on the day before we were asked to approve a guillotine on four Bills to be passed within a fortnight? [HON. MEMBERS: "Five Bills."] Five Bills and three guillotines. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons for the delay is that, according to the Prime Minister, we are hell bent on using the most archaic system, under which it will take longer to draw up boundaries and to hear objections than under any other electoral system known to mankind?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked three questions the implication of which is wrong. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not say that what has held us up is the absence of parliamentary time; he said that it was the absence of parliamentary approval. I am sure the House will welcome the Prime Minister's explanation that he could not announce a parliamentary decision on the matter before Parliament had studied the proposal.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us think that the Government are absolutely right not to rush into this decision on direct elections? In view of the fact that only this morning the National Executive of the Labour Party decided overwhelmingly, with only a few votes the other way, to oppose the concept of direct elections, will my right hon. Friend take that into consideration when considering the whole question?

Yes, of course I will. The Government asked for and received evidence from all the political parties, including the party which my hon. Friend and I serve, and clearly the views of the parties in a matter of such constitutional importance have to be taken into account. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for endorsing the Government's view that we must not rush into this.

The Minister is, of course, right that the decision rests with Parliament and not the Government. Was not this point safeguarded in the statement made by the Prime Minister only yesterday? Does it not look as though, because of the three Divisions we have just heard about, he allowed himself to be out-manoeuvred inBrussels and it looks as if once again it has been Britain which has held things up?

The hon. Gentleman may put that interpretation on it, but I do not think that anyone in Brussels did. I think that this morning the papers reported that some of the Commissioners felt that our decision was wholly natural and wholly reasonable. The hon. Gentleman may think that the defence of parliamentary rights in some way ought to be taken into account, and I had to make absolutely sure that the proper safeguards were included in the new instrument. I have no doubt that I was right to take that attitude.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many representatives there are likely to be from Wales in the latest model of a directly-elected European Assembly; and in what way the Govern- ment foresee co-ordination between Members of the European Assembly and the proposed Welsh National Assembly at Cardiff.

The distribution of seats within the United Kingdom remains a matter for national decision. Her Majesty's Government will put forward proposals to the House in due course. In considering whether any machinery for co-ordination is necessary between the Members of the European Assembly and the proposed Welsh and Scottish Assemblies, the Government will wish to take into account the views of the Select Committee on Direct Elections, which has stated its intention to cover this question in a later report.

Is the Minister aware that if Wales gets five out of the 81 seats, as has been widely reported in the Press, it will mean that we shall get one-third of the representation of Ireland with its 15 seats according to this model? It will also mean that Luxembourg, with a population the size of only Gwent, will have six seats, compared to Wales' five. Does that not therefore indicate that Wales should be singled out as part of the United Kingdom representation?

Let us assume that the figure the hon. Gentleman offers is right. The answer to his hypothesis is that Wales will benefit in two ways: first, through the Members elected to the European Parliament directly from Wales, and, secondly, directly as a result of the Members elected on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that only the blinkered view of nationalism could cause this preoccupation with numbers and that, in view of the total absence of any constituency relationship as we have hitherto understood it of representatives to the European Assembly, the regional or national distribution of seats in this country is virtually irrelevant to the question of a directly-elected Assembly?

I do not accept that an Assembly of the size that is now proposed, with Britain receiving the number of seats proposed, means that there can be no constituency relationship between Members and the people who elect them.

In their devolution model, do the Government envisage that it will be possible for an individual to sit as a Member of the Welsh Assembly, a Member of the House of Commons and a Member of the European Assembly? If so, will the pay policy apply to such individuals?

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it will be legally or physically possible. I should think that it would be physically impossible, and the hon. Gentleman had better examine the legal possibility when he sees the Bill which sets up the Assemblies and the Bill which will give force to the decision on direct elections.

I have in my hand a letter of October 1974 addressed to her colleagues by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) in which she refers to a Scottish Royal Air Force and says that there will doubtless be an English and Welsh Royal Air Force too. That letter was quoted at some length in the Adjournment debate at 10 o'clock this morning. Has my right hon. Friend any thoughts on the possibility of a Welsh Royal Air Force air attaché in Luxembourg?

I have only two thoughts on the subject. The first is that hardly anything that the hon. Lady suggests could surprise me. My second thought is that if anything surprised me I am sure it would be reported by my hon. Friend.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales energetically supports in Brussels attempts to get regional aid for projects in Wales, particularly projects for which regional aid has been refused by the British Government, such as the entertainments centre in my constituency?

I cannot comment on the individual case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is the British Government's belief that regional policies as well as regional aid should have a far more prominent position in the overall strategy of the Community, and we shall go on pressing for that.