asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any contact with the Brazilian Government since the State visit of President Geisel.

There have been normal diplomatic contacts. In addition, the Brazilian Minister of State for Planning has visited Britain and my hon. Friends the Ministers of State for Industry, Agriculture and Energy have visited Brazil to discuss economic and technological co-operation.

Does my hon. Friend recollect that while Her Majesty's Government were entertaining President Geisel recently in this country a deputation of hon. Members went to the Brazilian Embassy to protest about the lack of civil rights in that country? Will he ascertain at Government level whether representations passed to the Brazilian Ambassador were delivered to President Geisel and what response, if any, was made? Will he pass on the concern felt by this House over recent events in Brazil?

I do not think that it is for the British Government to inquire about representations made by hon. Members or others. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the House recently that he made clear to President Geisel the strong feelings that exist in this country on the subject of human rights.

Will my hon. Friend say whether a contract to supply arms to Brazil was signed, or is about to be signed, as a result of the visit of President Geisel? Will he bear in mind that many of us are concerned about the repressive nature of the Brazilian régime and strongly oppose the supply of arms to that country?

During the State visit some £330 million worth of contracts were signed or agreed, chiefly in steel and rail products. I know of no agreement that has been signed concerning arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of British representation in Uganda.

I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 28th July.

Will the Minister comment on President Amin's recent statement, reported in the weekend Press, to the effect that he wishes to resume diplomatic relations with this country? Will the Minister assure the House that if any such request is formally received by Her Majesty's Government it will get a pretty dusty answer?

We have not received such a request and we have no intention of seeking one.

Will the Minister confirm that the Russians still carry out an important rôle in Uganda and in part prop up the Amin régime, and that this gives them a strategic hold in Africa?

I could not confirm that situation without prior notice of such a question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will arrange to meet Council of Europe Ministers, so as to establish with them a Community Chest to facilitate inter-European community work programmes.

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

Is the Minister in favour of the scheme currently being canvassed in the Commission to enable young people within the Nine to spend up to one year's community service in another EEC country? What has he done to further that splendid idea, and what further does he propose to do?

I am all in favour of cooperation among the Nine, and I shall examine the scheme mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I believe that we also need to encourage community work programmes on a national basis, and I have always supported them.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the EEC campaign we were promised jobs for the boys in our own country? When will this happen?

Many things were promised in the referendum campaign, on both sides of the argument. In my interventions in the campaign, I confined myself largely to arguing the political case rather than the economic one for entry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to publish the Government's comments on the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus.

Her Majesty's Government's observations on the report of the Select Committee on Cyprus were laid before Parliament on 3rd August 1976 and published the following day.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Although those comments on the report were little more than helpful in terms of the Government's initial reaction, does he not now agree that it is important to talk about new initiatives for the future mounted by the British Government to solve the problem, since it is making relations within both the Community and Europe as a whole more difficult? Will he say what initiative Her Majesty's Government now propose to take?

I agree that we need a constructive contribution in finding a political solution. We remain ready to undertake any reasonable practical initiative. We fully support the initiative outlined in Dr. Kissinger's recent speech at the General Assembly, and on the basis of such concepts we are willing to act in concert with the United States Government and our European partners.

Now that the elections in Cyprus are out of the way, will the Minister bear in mind that a British Minister has not visited the island for a considerable time? Therefore, why does not the right hon. Gentleman go to Cyprus and conduct talks with the Government and President of that country? Could he not also take that opportunity to meet United Kingdom residents there and try to recover some of Britain's prestige?

I should be ready to consider a visit if it was thought to be helpful at a particular time. I was intending to visit Turkey recently, but that visit had to be cancelled. I agree that there are occasions when visits on the ground are helpful. The matter needs careful judgment as to the right moment to make such a visit.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in answering the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) he indicated that the Government would be prepared to do this, that or the other but not that they would do anything specific? Are the Government going to do anything—and, if so, what—to deal with the Cyprus problem?

We shall continue to be engaged in strenuous diplomatic activity over the Cyprus problem. I have given considerable attention to the area in the short time that I have been holding my present office. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish to do everything that is possible, but it is not always dramatic initiatives that are the way to achieve success. There is an area of quiet diplomacy that also needs to be undertaken.

If the right hon. Gentleman visits Cyprus—and I hope he will—will he ensure that, in addition to having talks with Archbishop Makarios and his colleagues, he will have talks with the Turkish representatives?

If I were to go, I should certainly wish to hear all shades of opinion and all people with interesting views on the matter.

Has the Turkish occupation by force of a part of Cyprus been discussed by CENTO? If so, what view did the British Government put forward in those discussions?

To the best of my knowledge, it has not been discussed by CENTO.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made during the course of the past three months towards a solution of the major problems which arose in Cyprus, following the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974.

The Secretary-General of the United Nations held consultations between 16th and 21st September 1976 with the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot negotiators in an attempt to restart the intercommunal talks. Consultations are continuing in Nicosia with the Secretary-General's special representative in Cyprus.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that in the forthcoming debate at the United Nations General Assembly the British representative will take a much more forthright position on this issue than has been taken in the past, and that he will deplore the continued expulsion of Greek Cypriots from the northern part of the island and the harassment of those who remain? Will he make it clear that no solution can possibly be found which in any way accepts the partition of the island?

I am naturally concerned, and so are the Government, about reports that the Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus have been forced against their wishes to leave their homes. If we are to make a success of the intercommunal talks, I must stress that it would not help in establishing a better atmosphere if at this stage I were to try to ascribe blame to either side.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, given the background against which the Turkish Cypriot community held its elections in June, followed by the Greek Cypriot community elections in September, we have separate States established on the island? Is it not appropriate to move towards a federal solution to the problem?

That is one of the options that has been discussed over a period. I think that most people who have studied the Cyprus problem feel that it is possible to reach a solution. The trouble is that we have to reach agreement on a possible solution. It is no use merely having pacer plans. We have to bring the two sides to accept a solution.

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

Following my reply to a similar Question by the hon. Gentleman on 7th July, I asked the Turkish Ambassador to call on me. I told him of the intense public concern on this matter and urged him to press his Government to expedite the establishment of compensation procedures.

I welcome the fact that the Government are taking that action. Will the Government bear in mind that urgency really is needed, as so many of the victims are elderly, and that if they are to get the benefit of any compensation they must get it quickly?

I am very well aware of the need for urgency. That is one of the reasons for the two actions that I have taken. In addition, our High Commissioner in Nicosia has been pursuing this matter continually with the authorities there, including the Turkish authorities.

Will the Minister elaborate on his last statement? Is it not true that a representative of the Turkish Cypriot community visited London 10 days ago and stated that the Turkish Cypriot community and their new federal form of Government accepted full responsibility for all damage after the ceasefire was agreed in Cyprus? If that is the case, will the Minister tell the House whether a central register is in existence in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to which he can refer in drawing up a claim on behalf of British residents in Cyprus?

Yes, I can confirm that. The position in general is that the Turkish Government have accepted responsibility for immediate claims as a result of hostilities, and the Denktash Administration have indicated that they will secure the protection of British property and undertake compensation for the remaining claims.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to bring pressure upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence with regard to the claim for compensation for the loss of personal belongings by Miss Olive Whitney, OBE, of the YMCA, who lost her personal belongings in Cyprus during the Turkish invasion while looking after the welfare of British Service men?

I should require notice of an individual claim. If my hon. Friend will write to me I will take it up in the appropriate quarters.

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

I would refer the hon. Member to my statement of 12th October. We shall no doubt be discussing this matter further in the debate later this afternoon.

Does the Secretary of State accept that all those who want to see a peaceful solution in Rhodesia must express a profound hope that the Geneva Conference will succeed? Do the Government intend to allow observers from other countries to attend the conference, and, if so, on what basis?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I had hoped for more such statements in the discussions that we had on 12th October. As regards the second part of his question, we do not intend to have observers at the conference. However, any Government or group of Governments who wish to send someone to Geneva to keep in touch will be welcome to do so. We have no intention of having official observers present in the conference chamber.

rose—

We shall be spending all day on this subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with his Department's implementation of Her Majesty's Government's policies in respect of apartheid in South Africa.

Yes, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend outline what steps he intends to take to curtail State and private investment in South Africa?

I think that we have made it clear that it is the Government's view that normal civil trade and investment should carry on in South Africa in the British national interest.

Since two distinguished African actors have been detained incommunicado in the Transkei for taking part in a play which when performed in London gained universal acclaim, and since the executives of the Opposition parties have likewise been detained under the South African Proclamation of 1960, does not this prove that the Government were right to refuse recognition for the Transkei, which purports to be independent on 26th October, and to continue with that posture, however much money may be spent by South Africa on advertising?

Yes, we shall so continue because the Transkei does not meet our criteria. That view has been shared by the EEC as a whole.

In what way does the Transkei not meet the normal criteria?

In our view, it is neither internally nor externally independent.

Is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to cast another veto in the Security Council in defence of South Africa's occupation of Namibia?

My hon. Friend knows that the language of a resolution would involve a Chapter VII determination. We should have to respond in that way. We have been pressing for and hoping for a resolution to emerge which will gain a consensus, but I fear that that is not likely.

Is it any part of the Government's policy on apartheid to withdraw co-operation and participation in maritime affairs with the South African Government? If so, how can that possibly make sense?

We have made clear our relations with South Africa concerning military matters. It has been a strong part of our policy to embargo military equipment and the sale of it. If the hon. and gallant Member has a specific question about a specific matter, if he puts down a Question I shall be pleased to answer it.

Is it not illogical for the Government to have a strict arms embargo themselves but to veto a resolution which would prevent other countries taking up the slack that our embargo makes available? If my hon. Friend is worried about the textual drafting of the resolution, will he sponsor a plain, straightforward resolution making an arms embargo mandatory?

To make the arms embargo mandatory, one has to accept Chapter VII determinations.

Why not?

That would involve many other consequences, including an embargo on trade. For the reasons I have given earlier, I do not think that that is in our interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he or any of his Department's Ministers plans to visit any of the countries of South America in the near future.

There are no immediate plans for such visits.

Although it is currently too much to expect a ministerial visit to Chile, what plans does the Minister have for at least appointing a new ambassador to Santiago? Why do the Government continue to apply a different yardstick to our relations with Chile from that which they appear to apply to other regimes of which they may disapprove?

It is far too much to expect a ministerial visit to Chile in view of the strong feelings held by the Government and the great public feeling in Britain about the position in Chile. The hon. Gentleman will know why we withdrew our ambassador. We did so in the light of the deplorable treatment and torture of a British citizen. The situation has not changed.

Have there been any ministerial contacts with Argentina in recent months? If not, what is the state of the discussions with that country on the future of the Falkland Islands since my hon. Friend last came before the House?

As regards ministerial contacts with the Argentine Government, a number of Ministers have come to London. Indeed, there is a Minister present this week. They have been in touch with their respective opposite numbers. We shall continue to have consultations with the Argentinians about the Falklands. I have nothing further to add to what has been our position as regards the Falklands.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made up to the present time in implementing the detailed provisions of the Helsinki Agreement; and if he will make a statement.

As I said on 28th July, we believe that some progress is being achieved in bringing existing practices into line with the Final Act provisions, although a proper assessment must wait until the Belgrade Review Conference next year. The most recent developments have been the notification by Poland of a large military manoeuvre involving Soviet, East German and Czechoslovak as well as Polish forces, and by Her Majesty's Government of a military manoeuvre, Exercise Spearpoint, which is due to be held in the Federal Republic of Germany from 2nd to 11th November.

What is the state of British preparations and combined Western preparations for Belgrade? Will the Minister give us an assurance that this meeting will be at a political level and not merely a meeting of officials? What evaluation has the hon. Gentleman made of the charge that is increasingly heard that the transfer of Western technology to the Soviet Union under detente is enabling the Soviet Union to free resources which it can then spend on military and other purposes hostile to the West?

All these matters are far more appropriate to the review conference, and it is far too early for the Government to state what will be their negotiating position for the conference.

When my hon. Friend and his colleagues at the Foreign Office had the task of entertaining the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister during the parliamentary recess, did the question of the Helsinki Agreement come up? What undertakings did Her Majesty's Government receive about the implementation of the agreement in Czechoslovakia, particularly concerning personal liberty and the freedom of the Press?

That matter occupied a substantial part of the discussions dur- ing the Foreign Minister's visit. Her Majesty's Government's view, particularly about 11 human rights cases, was put forcibly, and substantial progress was made in relation to those cases.

Will the review conference cover the disappointing progress made towards the freer exchange of information to the public of the Soviet Union and the West? If the position is no better by the time of the Belgrade Conference, will the Government take a strong line and give no further concessions until real progress has been shown on this matter?

The conference will cover all aspects of the Final Act, and I repeat that Her Majesty's Government will not be satisfied until all the requirements of the Final Act have been put into operation by the signatory States. All these matters will be contained within the review conference.

Did not the Helsinki Agreement aim to promote mutual disarmament? Will Her Majesty's Government respond favourably to the new Soviet proposal this year for a mutual reduction in forces and in missiles, which could, I think, break the two-year deadlock which is holding things up so badly?

The Government are willing to consider any proposals put to them, but this is obviously a matter of detailed negotiation, in which we have to be satisfied that there is a mutual reduction in forces and that it is not a one-sided package.

The Helsinki Agreement mentioned the notification of manoeuvres. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Soviet Union announced on Monday that it proposes to hold an other series of missile tests in the Barents Sea, despite the fact that this is a zone disputed with Norway and despite the protests of our Norwegian ally? Were these tests notified in accordance with the Helsinki Agreement? If not, what are the Government going to do about it?

The detail of that supplementary question does not arise directly from the Question on the Order Paper, but notification is an obligation. I should require notice of the further details mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action is proposed in view of recent developments in Southern Africa; and if he will make a statement.

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

I hope to make a statement on this subject in today's debate.

While we welcome the progress that the Government have made in bringing about a peaceful solution and majority rule for Zimbabwe, may I ask what action they are taking in the United Nations to end the illegal occupation of Namibia and to ensure that it, too, moves towards majority rule? Will the Government continue their policy of not recognising the Bantustans, which are essentially a part of the anatomy of apartheid, which has been rejected by the United Nations?

The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is "Yes". My answer to the first part is that very active discussions are going on at the moment about Namibia at the United Nations, as my hon. Friend knows, and it remains the objective of the Government to pursue precisely the aims he has described. I have no statement to make on Namibia at the moment, but, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State has said, we would like to see a unanimous resolution on it at the United Nations, just as there is unanimity amongst the nine member countries of the EEC on the subject. That is what we are seeking to achieve. I cannot say whether we shall be successful in achieving it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept once again the strong hope on this side of the House that the forthcoming Geneva Conference will be a success? Can he tell us what has been said to him by the African Presidents about their ability or otherwise to control guerrilla activity within their frontiers before, during and after the conference, and what will be the Government's reaction if they are unable to do so?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia and not the one which has also been discussed as a possibility on Namibia.

indicated assent.

The hon. Gentleman asked what the African Presidents have told me. I repeat what I said on Tuesday. I have many functions and responsibilities, but they do not include answering for what the Heads of other Governments have said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to pay an official visit to Moscow.

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

As this is the twentieth anniversary of the brutal Soviet oppression of Hungary, will the hon. Gentleman tell those apologists for Moscow in his party that they should cease their constant carping criticism of capitalism and that the unpleasant and unacceptable face of Soviet Socialism is represented by the tanks which rumbled into Budapest from Moscow 20 years ago?

No, Sir.

If we want to avoid a third world war between East and West, which is the supreme task facing our generation, surely it would be folly to avoid talks at the top level and at every level with people with whom it is vital that we should enjoy peace and detente.

I would not dissent from that opinion.

Will the hon. Gentleman suggest to the Foreign Secretary that when he goes to Moscow he should ask the Russians for their estimate of the subsidy to the Soviet consumer which will be paid by the British taxpayer if the line of credit advanced by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) is totally taken up by the Soviet Union? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for Trade is extremely evasive in answering my questions on the matter but that I am reliably informed that the figure will be over £200 million?

As my right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to visit Moscow, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is hypothetical.

Will my hon. Friend accept, however, that the terms of our trade with Eastern countries have improved considerably in recent months and years? Will he reaffirm that it is the policy of the Government to stimulate that trade in every way possible as well as stimulating peaceful relations?

I am sure the House will agree that it is in the interest of all to see widening free trade with Eastern countries.

But does widening free trade have to involve large subsidies from the British taxpayer?

No, it does not have to do so, and in this case I do not believe that it does.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held with West European Governments about formulating a common policy towards the problem of Palestine.

Middle East policy is frequently discussed among the Nine, but these discussions are and must remain confidential.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary to the United Nations General Assembly expressing sympathy for the aspirations of the Palestinians towards nationhood is welcome on this side of the House? Can he explain, however, why the Foreign Secretary expressed reservations about the actual sovereignty of the Palestinian State?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his welcome to my right hon. Friend's speech. In saying that it need not necessarily be a sovereign State, my right hon. Friend simply meant that it was premature at this stage to lay down a constitutional blueprint. There are obviously several possibilities, but he was not suggesting any preference for one as opposed to others.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as the Lebanese civil war rolls on, the Palestinian groups grow more and more fragmented and there is a growing danger that some of the fringe groups will turn once again to outrages of international terrorism, as happened in the past? Does he agree also that one way of avoiding this possible danger is for the Western European Governments to take a positive diplomatic initiative in order to find a solution to the Palestinian problem, a manoeuvre which is sadly lacking at the present time?

In my right hon. Friend's speech to the United Nations his purpose was to restate the British view of the essential elements of any settlement for which Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338 remain the basis. But, in addition, he wished to underline our recognition, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, of the central importance of the Palestinians and their aspirations towards nationhood.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will initiate a study into the effectiveness of commercial departments in British embassies and posts overseas; what steps he is taking to increase their effectiveness; and if he will make a statement.

The Central Policy Review Staff is already conducting a review of our overseas representation. Part of its task will be to look at the question that my hon. Friend has raised. It would not be appropriate at this stage to anticipate its findings.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is a widely held industrial view that although the commercial side of these departments has improved considerably in recent years, there is still room for strengthening them in special skill areas? Will the CPRS look at the possibility, in areas where special skills are involved, of borrowing people from industry on a temporary basis?

All sides of industry are represented in the British Overseas Trade Board, and this is responsible for the direction of the commercial work overseas. The Central Policy Review Staff will take into account the views of all the interested parties in considering our representation overseas.

As it is the policy of the main parties in this House to move towards economic and monetary union and the full integration of our country into the European Community—[Interruption.] I meant the Front Benches—at what point will this reflect itself in a massive cut in the Foreign Service when Europe, speaking with one voice, as it is supposed to, can be represented by one voice overseas, enabling us thereby to cut out all British embassies?

As the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is based on such a false hypothesis, I do not think that this is the time at which to pursue it.

But long before the idyllic circumstances arrive to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred, does the Minister accept that there has indeed been a considerable improvement in the commercial departments of embassies abroad? May I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) and suggest that we should be thinking about the secondment of someone experienced in marketing to embassies in the areas in which we expect and hope to increase our exports?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. The whole House will echo the statement that there has been a remarkable improvement in this area. As for the other suggestion, this is exactly the kind of matter that will be considered by the CPRS during its study.

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

We have received a number of reports about the situation in Kampuchea, from Her Majesty's representatives in the area and other sources. In the absence of any British representation in that country, it is impossible to secure first-hand accounts of the situation there.

As senior British diplomatic observers estimate that the Khmer Rouge Government have executed 100,000 Cambodians in the last 15 months, will the Minister say why the Government have offered no assistance at all to the United Nations programme for helping Cambodian refugees?

We condemn any atrocities, wherever they occur. We have found a means of expressing the concern that has been shown in this House and elsewhere in this country to the Government of Kampuchea, despite the fact that we have no representation there.

Have we not appointed a diplomatic representative to Cambodia? Where is he?

Not yet.

How has the Minister expressed his concern, and what action will the Government take?

I do not think that I can divulge the details of the methods we use. We do not have representation in Kampuchea itself. We found a means of expressing our concern through other diplomatic representatives to the Kampuchea Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their position on the new international economic order betwen the present and the meeting on the common fund next March, with a view to joining Canada as a member of the concerned countries.

Her Majesty's Government have long recognised the need to achieve a more equitable world economic system. We accordingly intend to play a constructive role in the forthcoming preparatory meetings, both on individual commodities and on a common fund, which the UNCTAD Secretary-General is required to convene.

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, but is he aware that there is considerable concern among the less developed Commonwealth countries, particularly those in the Caribbean, that in this matter Her Majesty's Government are not playing the full and co-operative rôle which is expected, and which is being carried out by the Canadian Government? Will my right hon. Friend have another look at this and see if he can put these fears at rest?

I shall certainly look at this, but I do not think that my hon. Friend's concern is really justified. There are differences of view. It is true to say that there are some people who are taking a more sceptical look and others who are more enthusiastic. I would put the British position as being broadly in the middle of the spectrum. But we shall gladly look at it.

As the Government's performance at Nairobi was somewhat disappointing, although partly redeemed at the end, does my right hon. Friend agree that this country is in a good position to suggest alternative means of obtaining the things that the Third World wants, this being fully in accordance with the needs and obligations of Her Majesty's Government?

Yes, I think we are in a good position. I do not want to exaggerate our position. It would be stronger if our national economy were stronger. But we still have an important rôle to play, and we must bear our own economic difficulties, in comparison with the great degree of poverty that still exists in large portions of the world.

As the recent Club of Rome study, reported in the Press today, shows that the gap between the developed and developing countries, in terms of standard of life, has widened considerably over recent years, will the Minister undertake to encourage his colleagues in the Ministry of Overseas Development to be even more active in their sphere of responsibility than they already have been?

The Ministry of Overseas Development is doing a very great deal. It is especially striving wherever possible to ensure that aid goes to the poorer countries and to the poorest in those countries. It is a very difficult and complex problem. It involves multilateral negotiations. I am sure that that is the right way to proceed, and progress is being made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be attending an EEC Council of Ministers meeting.

On 15th and 16th November.

In view of the current Turkish displeasure with the EEC, which I think is fairly well established now, and in view of the obvious dangers inherent in that situation, will the Minister of State, the next time he visits the Council of Ministers, make it clear to the Council that Britain wishes to retain the most friendly relations with Turkey? Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that nothing is done by the EEC which harms our alliance with Turkey?

I attach a great deal of importance to good relations between Turkey and this country. It is obvious that our discussions previously on Cyprus underline the importance of our relations with that country. But there are many other countries in the Nine which also have traditional friendships and traditional involvements with Turkey both as NATO partners and in other areas of foreign policy. We are all concerned that there is at the moment some disagreement, but we hope to discuss this with the Turkish Government and reach agreement with them on what is for every member of the Nine a very difficult problem.

When shall we be informed of the business which is to come before the Council of Ministers, as has been customary in the past?

It is normal to make a statement about it towards the end of the month, and I hope to do that.

When the Council of Ministers is legislating, as opposed to merely discussing policy, why cannot it legislate in public?

I am sorry, I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's question. He speaks of "legislation in public". In terms of the Community, it is well known that the Community conducts a lot of its discussions in confidential sessions. I think that it has worked reasonably well in the past.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the German representative on the Council of Ministers that, in any negotiations between the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schmidt over the propping up of the pound, they cannot look upon Scottish oil as collateral for any bargaining which may be taking place?

Again, I cannot see how that arises out of the original Question. However, I shall take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

The right hon. Gentleman seemed a little surprised at the supplementary question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) about legislation in public by the Council of Ministers. Is he not aware that this matter has been canvassed over three or four years and pressed both in Strasbourg and upon his colleagues on the Treasury Bench? Will he in future read his brief more carefully before answering our questions?

I am very conscious of having been away from European matters for some considerable time. I have, after all, been involved with the National Health Service for two and a half years. I shall look at this. There are problems about having completely open discussions until a state of agreement has been reached. I recognise that there is a problem of member nations' legislatures and the whole question of Community regulations. I recognise that that is a problem to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman attaches a great deal of importance. I shall do my utmost to ensure that this House is kept informed at all stages wherever possible of intended Community legislation. There are, however, formidable difficulties, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself pointed out well before we entered the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the draft instrument for direct elections to the EEC Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by what procedure it is proposed to ask Parliament to ratify the legal instrument signed at Brussels on 20th September providing for direct elections to the Strasbourg Assembly; and when it is proposed to bring this before the House.

The provisions of the Act signed on 20th September will come into force after all the member States have notified the completion of the procedures necessary in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In the case of the United Kingdom, such notification would not be made until after Parliament had both enacted the necessary implementing legislation and approved by affirmative resolution an Order in Council made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that statement. Is he aware that, despite the provisions of Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, it is a flimsy protection for this House? He will recall that the Prime Minister said that we might need to amend that part of the Act. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Article 7 of Command 6623, to which he referred, requires uniform procedures at a subsequent date for these direct elections?

Article 7 provides that the Assembly shall draw up a proposal for a uniform electoral procedure but that, pending the coming into force of such a procedure, the electoral procedure shall be governed in each member State by its national provisions. This was an issue which was commented on by the Select Committee in its report.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the European Parliament there is a certain degree of suspicion that the United Kingdom Government do not seriously intend to introduce direct elections by 1978? Perhaps it would be helpful if the Minister of State could give a categorical assurance that there is no question of delay and that the United Kingdom Government will adhere to the 1978 target.

There is a later Question about this on the Order Paper. However, I reiterate what was said by my right hon. Friend recently. We intend to introduce this as soon as practicable.

If the Government are still working towards 1978, by what date do they expect to have constituencies identified for these elections, by what procedure will constituencies be chosen, and what length of time is necessary for any Boundary Commission to consider those constituencies and give a fair time for debate before they are finalised?

The Government are considering all these issues. They were all covered in the Select Committee's report. I am sure that the House will wish to study that report carefully, as the Government are doing currently.

What obligation was imposed on this and other countries about the date of direct elections?

We used the term "best endeavours procedure". There were practical difficulties in view of the timing of legislation in this House. We said that we would undertake to use our best endeavours, and that is our firm intention.

May I congratulate the Minister of State on his new appointment and on what is, I believe, his first appearance in it at the Dispatch Box? He referred to the report of the Select Committee. Is he aware that, in its Second Report, the Committee said that, if a Boundary Commission was to do a fair and proper job for direct elections within the timetable which the Secretary of State accepted, an Act of Parliament would need to reach our statute book by the end of February next year? Will he give an undertaking that the Government intend to introduce a Bill in the next Session early enough for Parliament, if it so wishes, to meet that timetable?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his personal comments. Of course, I cannot prejudge the Queen's Speech. The House will have to consider the issues raised by the Select Committee, which also made recommendations about reducing the appeals procedure relating to the Boundary Commissions. The House will have to form a judgment. Everyone on both sides of the House is aware that to meet the February date will be extremely difficult.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards finalising arrangements for direct elections to the European Parliament.

The Government participated to the full in the negotiations which led to the agreement on direct elections reached at the European Council in July and to the decision of the Council and the annexed Act which, with the other Community Foreign Ministers, my right hon. Friend signed at the Council meeting in Brussels on 20th September. The Government will introduce the legislation needed to implement direct elections in the United Kingdom at the earliest practicable date.

Is it still the position of the Government that a directly-elected Assembly would have no more powers than that of the present nominated Assembly?

Yes, that is the situation.

Do the Government propose to ask the House to approve the legal instrument before the end of the Session?

We have made it clear that we see this matter in two parts. The first part is to have the direct elections. My right hon. Friend is an experienced parliamentarian and he must know that he is asking me to anticipate the Queen's Speech. As far as this Session is concerned, it would be impossible to carry through the legislation in the few remaining weeks that we have available, and it is not our intention to do so.

In his answer to a previous question, the Minister said that February was out of the question for passing this legislation. Can he give an estimate of when he thinks the legislation will go through?

The hon. Member has misheard me. I did not say that it was out of the question. I said that it would present very great difficulties. Clearly, the hon. Member must await the Queen's Speech.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards the co-ordination of foreign policy in the EEC.

A great deal, Sir. The Nine continuously work towards common positions on foreign policy matters. The speech made on 28th September at the thirty-first United Nations General Assembly by the Netherlands Foreign Minister in his capacity as President of the Council of the European Communities is encouraging evidence of progress. During the thirtieth General Assembly the Nine voted together on 83 per cent. of all United Nations resolutions and the country holding the presidency spoke on behalf of the Nine on 30 occasions. This represents a major move towards the co-ordination of foreign policy in the EEC.

Is the Secretary of State aware that I welcome that reply? May I draw his attention to the approach made some months ago by COMECON to the EEC for a commercial agreement? Does not that approach raise important political issues, including the question of what counter-proposals the EEC might want to make? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the political issues will be considered by Ministers along with the commercial ones?

I can give that assurance to the House. I agree that this is a matter of great importance. It was discussed during the past two days in Luxembourg. No final decision was taken about the nature of the reply to that proposal. When we come to take a final decision on it, however, there is no question but that we shall take seriously into account the political as well as the commercial considerations.

What opportunities are taken to seek to persuade our partners in the EEC to co-ordinate policies, for example, to bring pressure to bear on Chile about its failure to observe proper standards of human rights and to seek co-ordination of our respective policies on the supply of arms to South Africa?

A great deal of pressure is brought to bear, but to be fair to our EEC partners I should say that they are extremely willing to do the things we ask them. The most recent example of this was yesterday, when the Nine were very willing to issue a very strong statement, to which I shall refer later in the day, supporting the British Government's initiative over Rhodesia.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree, following his helpful answer, that the time has now come to have a secretariat dealing with these matters as the burden on the person in office will be very great?

What about public expenditure?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) has said, and at the end of the day I think it would save public expenditure, not increase it. I have found most disconcerting the extent to which there is more than one single decision-making centre within the Community. This was referred to in the Tindemans Report, and I have a lot of sympathy with what Mr. Tindemans said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to discuss with the Council of Ministers the question of extended limits and amendments to the common fisheries policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on fishing limits in relation to the common fisheries policy.

The Commission's proposals of 23rd September contained, in addition to recommendations on the internal fisheries régime, a recommendation that member States should extend their fisheries limits in the North Sea and the North Atlantic to 200 miles on 1st January 1977. This subject was discussed in the Council on 18th and 19th October, and discussion will continue at a meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers on 29th and 30th October.

Am I right in thinking that the briefing material that our negotiators and the Community negotiators have includes maps showing the authorised positions in respect of exclusive zones? Could maps with these markings be made available to us?

No, my hon. Friend is not right about that.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the report in The Times today on the position of the Irish Government? Will he say whether the British Government will align themselves with the Government of Ireland in insisting that there can be no external EEC zones until arrangements for our own internal zones have been completed with the fishing industry?

No. It is of fundamental importance to the British fishing industry that we should get a mandate for negotiations with third countries without delay.

rose—

Order. There is to be a statement on this matter after Questions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made in setting up the review of the staffing, structure and political rôle of the EEC Commission.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister undertook to propose to the European Council next month the terms of reference for a review which the new President of the Commission might be asked to undertake of the staffing, structure and organisation of the Commission. It will be for the European Council to decide on the next step.

Have the Government reached certain conclusions about the need to reform the central institutions of the Community?

Obviously, the terms of reference have to be confidential to the European Council. If my right hon. Friend undertook to give it to the Heads of Government at the European Council, the right time to review it would be at that meeting. The Government's views are firming up and if Opposition Members have suggestions on the areas of reform we will be happy to look at them and take account of them in drawing up the final terms of reference.

When will we know who will be the other Commissioner from Britain?

Members of the Commission are appointed by common accord of member States. We all seek the appointment of persons whom we believe to be best qualified for the position.

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's remarks concerning the terms of reference. If the political rôle of the EEC Commission is to be altered in any way, will this be a constitutional matter which will require a change in the treaties if any changes are adopted?

That is an option. The majority of requests for changes in the terms in which the original proposal was put forward by the Prime Minister did not require either changes in the treaties or in the procedures. All the same, there might be some. There is a lot to be done in tightening up the administration and reducing bureaucracy.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and tell us when the second Commissioner will be appointed? Is there not an empty room waiting in the Cabinet Office which should be filled?

As I told the hon. Member for Banbury, appointments are not made unilaterally but are made in accord by all member States. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) has not been formally appointed, although everyone knows the situation. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 15th July that he would consider any suggestion in this respect that the Leader of the Opposition might put to him.

asked the hon. Member for Kingswood, representing the Church Commissioners, when a second Parochial Fees Order, outlining proposed changes in the calculations and sale of search fees for the parish registers, will be laid before the House.

The Commissioners have not taken any decision concerning the promotion of a further Parochial Fees Order dealing with fees for searches in church registers. Any such Order would have to be approved by the General Synod before it could be laid before Parliament, and any such move is likely to be related to the progress that is made with the Parochial Records and Registers Measure, currently under consideration by the General Synod.

Has my hon. Friend seen the prolonged correspondence in The Times putting forward grave reservations about any increase in the scale of charges for parochial fees? Before any such scale went through the General Synod and was laid before this House as an Order—and it would be strongly opposed—would he receive a deputation of those concerned?

I have had many representations from hon. Members with regard to the present Parochial Fees Order. If my hon. Friend put those who are most concerned in touch with me, I shall be pleased to receive a deputation and the Secretary-General of the General Synod will co-operate all he can.

Will the hon. Member give a categorical assurance that county historical societies will be fully consulted before any measure is brought forward? The societies have very great fears.

The stage for that consultation is before the actual decisions are made by the General Synod. I shall be pleased to receive those representations now in order that we may discuss the matter fully before it comes to the General Synod.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the local historians in Putney and elsewhere in the country will be delighted with his answer?