asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Rhodesian constitutional talks at Geneva.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the conference on the Rhodesian settlement.

I do not intend to make a statement at this particularly delicate stage of the negotiations in Geneva.

Does the Secretary of State realise that while the talks in Geneva appear to be approaching a state of collapse the Soviet Union is apparently increasing its supply of arms to the guerrilla forces in Southern Africa? Will he therefore consider flying to Geneva, if that becomes necessary to save the talks, and make it clear to the nationalists that if the talks collapse at this stage many people in the world will see it as a result of their intransigence and their refusal to take "Yes" as an answer?

I am prepared to go to Geneva if by going I can save the conference from collapse. There can be no doubt of that. We have made it clear that, whilst the talks are going on, both sides should do all that they can to de-escalate the guerrilla warfare that is going on. I do not think that the talks are now on the point of collapse. It is far too early, and it is too much of a hypothetical matter, to say upon whose shoulders such a collapse would lie.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that a major stumbling block to the continuation of the talks appears to be the understandable distrust that the African leaders have of Mr. Smith? Will he give an assurance that during the period of the transitional Government ministerial control of the police and security forces will not remain with Mr. Smith or any of his associates who participated in his illegal racialist régime?

There are 101 stumbling blocks to an agreement at the conference. The one that my hon. Friend mentioned is a major one, but not the only one. Responsibility for the armed forces, security forces and law and order will constitute a central aspect when the conference gets round to discussing the question of interim government.

Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition fully share his desire to see a successful outcome of the conference but that we are deeply concerned about the lack of progress at the present stage? It is difficult to understand why it was considered wise to tackle the date for independence first. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it seems unwise to settle the date of arrival before knowing the route by which one gets there?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. Starting with the date and time required to reach independence was a tactical decision. I have no wish to criticise Mr. Ivor Richard on the tactics that he chose. It seemed to him that the date would be an easier matter to settle than, for instance, the question who should be responsible for law and order and the armed forces. The date for independence should have been easier to settle, and it is a disappointment that a difference of three months is proving such an important obstacle.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now arrange for a proposal to be made to the United Nations to lift economic sanctions on Rhodesia, in view of recent developments.

No, Sir.

As it is nearly two months since the Kissinger agreement was reached, and now that the Rhodesian delegation is playing its part at Geneva, what is the point of maintaining sanctions if, in the meantime, we do not directly administer the territory?

We passed the sanctions order in the House only a few weeks ago and it was approved in another place only on Friday. I have made it clear that we shall move quickly to lift sanctions once an interim Government has been agreed.

Does the Minister not agree that it is dangerous to try to renegotiate the Kissinger package and to lift sanctions before there is an agreement? Are we not faced with two potentially fatal ambiguities? First, the 21st September telegram from Dr. Kissinger in Dar-es-Salaam could mean that agreement on defence and security questions had actually been secured, or, alternatively, that these matters should be placed on the agenda for discussion. Secondly, what does Mr. Smith mean by majority rule? Does he mean what the rest of us mean by majority rule, or does he mean a qualified majority rule? Does the Minister agree that until we get those ambiguities removed we shall not be able to negotiate on equal terms with both sides?

I agree that it is dangerous to lift sanctions before agreement is reached. The matter that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will be under discussion at the Geneva talks, and I do not wish to pre-empt those discussions.

Does my hon. Friend not find it astonishing that some of the most vociferous of the self-appointed guardians of law and order are advocating that we should cease to sustain our action against the most outrageous act of illegality that has ever been perpetrated in a British territory? Would that not play into the hands of those who perpetrated that act? Should we not uphold law and order by continuing sanctions?

We must uphold law and order by maintaining sanctions. Some of the remarks made by those who want to lift sanctions before a settlement is reached and an interim Government has been arranged imply that they support the legalising of an illegal régime.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest preparations he has made for the Belgrade Review Conference of the Helsinki Agreement.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 11th November. As the Belgrade Review Conference approaches, we shall of course intensify our consultations with our partners and allies. We are, moreover, maintaining a careful record of the degree of progress on implementation achieved by the participating States, with a view to making a full contribution to the Review Conference.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is it the Government's intention to press that the Belgrade Review Conference be held at a political level and not just at civil servants' level? In his preparations for the conference, what consideration is the hon. Gentleman giving to the arguments increasingly heard that the transfer of Western technology and expertise to the Soviet Union enables the Soviet Union to free other resources, which can then be used for purposes hostile to the West?

The Government fully recognise the political importance of the Belgrade meetings. However, it is too early to think of formulating negotiating positions. We are in close touch with many other participating States in order to monitor progress and closely examine areas in which further progress can be made. It is too early to be talking about the detail of the negotiating mandate.

As the Government are rightly monitoring progress, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the Prime Minister received by hand a letter from Mr. Andrei Sakharov relating the conditions in which Mr. Vladimir Bukovsky is being kept in prison in Russia? What reply does he propose to give to that letter or, even better, what pressure does he propose to bring upon the Soviet Government to release Mr. Bukovsky?

I am not in a position to confirm details about a particular letter, but I can make clear, as I have before, that over the past year we have on a number of occasions raised individual cases with the Soviet Union and other Eastern European countries. Those concerned have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling which rightly exists in the House and the country on all these matters, which will continue to be pressed on every possible opportune occasion with the utmost vigour.

Will my hon. Friend give one or two examples of the things that this country has done as a result of signing the Helsinki Agreement? For example, have we made it easier and quicker to obtain visas to visit this country?

In addition to our frequent consultations with the other CSCE countries, to which I have referred, we have in particular recently notified a military manoeuvre—"Exercise Spear-point", in the Federal Republic of Germany—and we are taking action in a number of fields to develop contacts with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. We have made clear on a number of occasions exactly what needs to be done to facilitate freer movement of people between countries.

In view of the hon. Gentleman's answer about individual cases will he confirm that the Government have received the same response as we on the Conservative Benches have had when we have put individual cases to the Soviet authorities—namely, complete silence?

I am not in a position to confirm that. There have been a num- ber of exchanges of view, some of which have been more successful than others. I do not consider it a laughing matter. Every opportunity has been taken to put individual cases as forcefully as possible, so that nobody can be left in any doubt about our feelings. Some approaches receive more response than others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the progress achieved in the London Club of nuclear suppliers.

Officials from a number of countries who have decided to harmonise their nuclear export policies held another meeting in London on 11th and 12th November under United Kingdom chairmanship. The purpose of these meetings is to ensure that nuclear exports do not contribute to the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices. The Governments concerned will continue to keep in close touch.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that rather laconic answer. Does he agree that the issues involved are so grave that it is of the utmost importance to try to invoke the support of Parliament and public opinion by lifting the secrecy within which the discussions are conducted? Is the group now any nearer to publishing an up-to-date version of the so-called Zangger trigger list of proscribed nuclear exports, such as reprocessing and other sensitive technologies?

At some stage it may be possible to say more on this subject. For the present, however, it has been agreed by all those participating that the discussion can best make progress if confidentiality is maintained. That applies to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question as well.

Is my hon. Friend aware that secrecy in this matter will merely exacerbate public disquiet and uncertainty in these matters? Do our Government support the initiative taken by President Ford and by the American Administration on the idea of a three-year moratorium on the export of any reprocessing equipment for nuclear fuel?

I can only re-emphasise that it has been agreed by all those participating that the discussions can make real progress only if their confidentiality is maintained.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what tests Her Majesty's Government applied in considering whether or not the Transkei met the criteria for independence.

We tested the evidence available on the Transkei and the process by which it had achieved its purported independence against our legal criteria and in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.

When the independence of, for example, the ex-High Commission territories and Malawi was recognised, were not those States at least as dependent as is the Transkei today on the former administering Power, so was not the Government's attitude decided not by objective criteria but by hypocrisy and double standards?

It was not decided by hypocrisy or double standards; it was based on an assessment of the case and the process by which the Transkei reached independence. if he compared that with the way in which we brought to independence the other States he mentioned, the hon. Gentleman would find a considerable difference.

Do not the Government find it bitterly ironical that, as part of the European Economic Community, the United Kingdom itself is not able to satisfy the legal criteria for recognition as an independent State?

I have not noticed any difference in our status in that respect.

Does my hon. Friend agree that by the criterion of acceptability to the world community the Transkei has fallen flat on its face, in the light of the United Nations vote by 135 to nil not to accept it as an independent State?

It has been supported neither by any of our EEC partners nor by the United Nations.

The hon. Gentleman talked about evidence. Will he make available to the House the evidence on which he claims to have acted?

The evidence lies in the provisions of the Transkei Act. If the right hon. Gentleman studies them, he will realise that the Act is an extension of the Bantustan policy of South Africa and not the birth of a new nation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives Her Majesty's Government intend to take regarding the situation in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.

We hope that new negotiations for a Middle East peace will soon be launched, but it would be premature for us to consider an initiative before the new United States Administration has clarified its position.

Bearing in mind that Dr. Kissinger's step-by-step initiatives collapsed quite a long time ago, as he himself has now admitted, and that the transfer to a new Administration is continuing to paralyse American policy, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is time for a much more vigorous European involvement? Will the British Government, with France, try to take the lead in formulating a new policy in the Middle East?

The Middle East is discussed at regular intervals with the rest of the Nine, which constitute a useful forum for trying to co-ordinate policy. I think that the same objections apply to initiatives by the Nine as to an individual initiative from this country. Until there is a new Administration in office, although United States foreign policy is not paralysed it is not a good time for a new initiative.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present there is some evidence of an increasing and closer relationship between the United States Government and Egypt, which is considerably to the detriment of British economic interests?

There is undoubtedly a closer relationship than there has been in the past between the United States and Egypt, but that goes for the United Kingdom and Egypt. One of the important and hopeful signs for the whole of the Middle East is that good contacts are being pursued by all the parties outside the region. That means that they will have more influence on the parties to the dispute when it comes to a discussion, but essentially the will for a settlement must come from the parties to the dispute.

What is the latest news that the right hon. Gentleman has received from Amman on the armed attack that is reported to have taken place on the Intercontinental Hotel this morning? Will he take this opportunity of reaffirming Her Majesty's Government's support for King Hussein and, indeed, for the Government of the Hashemite Kingdom?

I take this opportunity of reaffirming our support for the King and for the Government of the Jordanians. My only information on this matter was obtained earlier this morning. At that time, I gather, there were no British casualties involved, although some British citizens are in the hotel. I shall let any Member know of any new events that may transpire. At the moment there is no apparent risk to British life.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the warm welcome that we gave to the Foreign Secretary's recent statement on the rights of the Palestinians? Will he extend his views to an acceptance of the need to create and recognise Palestinian sovereignty in their own territory?

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments on my right hon. Friend's speech. My right hon. Friend thought is was premature at this stage to lay down a constitutional blueprint. That was why he phrased his speech to the United Nations in the way that he did. I do not think it is right to go any further than the words he used at that time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will now take a new initiative in the United Nations Security Council to end the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa.

We have just had a full debate in the Security Council which began on 31st August and continued intermittently until 19th October. We would expect the Security Council to discuss Namibia again next year unless a satisfactory solution has been found in the meantime. We shall of course continue to consult closely with others inside and outside the United Nations about the question of Namibian independence and freedom.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the unanimous vote supported by the United Kingdom for the Security Council resolution on 31st January was important and a step forward in relation to Namibia? Does he accept that it is no use voting for those excellent and impeccable principles unless we are prepared to follow up with positive pressure on South Africa? At the moment, we seem to be pursuing an ambivalent policy.

I think that we are following up with positive pressure. What I am not willing to do is to exercise or allow Chapter 7 determination provisions to be passed in this case. That is the difference between my hon. Friend and myself. There is not an absence of positive pressure, but we are trying to bring about co-operation with others.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the Zambian Foreign Minister.

My right hon. Friend had a friendly discussion with Dr. Mwale in New York last month but there are no plans at present for another meeting.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets the Zambian Foreign Minister, will he tell him to tell his friends in Mozambique that not one more penny piece of British taxpayers' money will be payable to that Government as long as they support the murderous guerrillas who attack Rhodesians, both black and white?

If the hon. Gentleman wanted to ask about Mozambique and aid he should have tabled a Question on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the meeting with Boris Ponomarev.

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had separate meetings with Mr. Ponomarev during the latter's visit, in the course of which there was a useful exchange of views on a wide range of issues.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the open and clear statement of policy by all Ministers in connection with this visit is appreciated, as are their objections to the persecutions of minorities within the Soviet Union? Does he feel that the Russian guests at least understood that true detente will never come about while the persecutions continue?

I think that my hon. and learned Friend will understand why I do not propose to go into the details of what was said in the discussions. Mr. Ponomarev and his delegation were left in no doubt about the strength of feeling that exists about divided families, the whole range of human rights questions, and the fact that if detente is to be meaningful it has to be meaningful for people as well as for States.

Are not the activities of Mr. Ponomarev relevant to how the Soviet Union is performing its obligations under the Helsinki Agreement? In that context, will he reconsider the answer that he gave me last week, to which he referred in answer to an earlier Question today, in which he indicated that the Government do not propose to publish any review of the performance of the Helsinki Agreement before the Belgrade Conference? Is that not entirely unsatisfactory? Should the Government not consider publishing a White Paper before Belgrade assessing how the various parties—especially the main parties—have performed their obligations?

That question does not arise from the Question on the Order Paper, and would have been more appropriately dealt with under Question No. 3.

Will my hon. Friend say whether, in the consultations with Mr. Ponomarev, the opportunity was taken to raise the question of prisoners such as Mr. Bukovsky, Mr. Moroz and Pastor Vins, who are kept in cruel and inhuman confinement in the Soviet Union? Was it put to him forcibly that they are conditions that no civilised State should allow?

As I have said, Mr. Ponomarev was left in no doubt about the strength of feeling on these issues and on the issues that have been discussed involving the division of families and the denial of human rights. Every opportunity was taken to ensure that the strength of feeling which, as I have said repeatedly, rightly exists in the House and throughout the country was expressed to our visitors from the Soviet Union.

Does the Minister realise that what stick in people's throats are the double standards that are applied? How do the Government justify excluding a journalist from this country on the ground that his activities may be detrimental to State security—which they may well be—while at the same time welcoming with open arms a man whose avowed purpose is to bring down our system of government and whose agents are actively involved in seeking to achieve that?

I can see no question of double standards. The only conclusion that the House can draw from the comments of Opposition Members is that the best way of pursuing detente, which I presume the hon. Gentleman as well as others in the House supports, is by totally isolating ourselves from any contact with those whose views we are seeking to influence and change.

Will my hon. Friend accept that an increasing number of Members on the Government Benches are disturbed by what we see as too frequent invitations by the NEC to the anti-Socialist régimes of Eastern Europe and Russia?

That is a question for which there is no ministerial responsibility. I hope that Conservative Members are not suggesting that when such visitors are in this country we should not take the opportunity, as a Government, to seek to put to them in the clearest possible terms the concern that my hon. Friend and Conservative Members express in such strong language every time they have the opportunity.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the questions that are being asked in the House today, and the number of Members on both sides of the House who are asking them, are extremely helpful in the prosecution of the case in favour of individuals in the Soviet Union? There is all the difference in the world between Ministers telling their opposite numbers in the Soviet Union about their concern, on the one hand, and making it clear to the Soviets that this is something on which there is tremendous feeling, crossing all political barriers, not merely among minorities but among everyone in the country?

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. Pressure and, indeed, assistance is no use unless we have an opportunity to express our view to leading figures responsible for making decisions in the Soviet Union and other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's approach to the current talks on the future of Namibia.

Her Majesty's Government take the view that political parties including the South-West African People's Organisation must be allowed to participate in negotiations and in a single electoral process. The Windhoek Conference, although a useful source of advice, does not yet constitute self-determination.

In the light of Mr. Sam Nujoma's recent visit to Moscow to purchase arms, the obvious links between SWAPO and the Marxists in Angola, and the split between the internal and external wings of SWAPO, will the Government reconsider giving educational and financial aid to SWAPO?

We give aid to individuals in Namibia as a result of requests from organisations, which include not only SWAPO but other organisations. I see no reason why we should deprive individuals of such aid.

Will my hon. Friend accept that, if the Western Powers continue to fail to bring effective pressure on South Africa on this matter, SWAPO, Angola and other people directly concerned will seek alliances and arms elsewhere?

The best way of solving the problem is for South Africa to bring about an early and rapid movement towards a free and independent State of Namibia.

Have Her Majesty's Government changed the name of South West Africa to "Namibia", and, if so, with what authority? Has such a change the support of the indigenous peoples of South-West Africa?

Namibia is a reasonably known international name for what in other language is South-West Africa.

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

I gave my views on this, as did many others, during the debate on the renewal of sanctions order on 20th October. I have not altered those views. Rhodesia's future depends totally on the negotiations now proceeding at Geneva.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Soviet policy envisages a Marxist revolutionary regime in Zimbabwe, with all the risks to life and property that are entailed? Will he now consider whether Her Majesty's Government will take full control throughout the period of transition before the democratic elections establish a popular Government of the Rhodesian people's choice?

I do not doubt that that is the objective of Soviet policy, just as a quite different objective would be pursued by the United States Government or by the EEC. As for taking full responsibility, if the hon. Gentleman means that we should send troops and assume military responsibility and that we should send British civil servants and assume administrative and executive responsibility, that would mean our resuming a full colonial role in Rhodesia—a role which we have never exercised as a Government. That would not be accepted by a Government of any party in this country.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any settlement arrived at on Rhodesia does not involve the British Government in paying substantial sums of compensation to white people who may at that point wish to leave Rhodesia because they have never at any time acceded to the legitimate desires of the Rhodesian people?

I have made clear on other occasions, and I wish to repeat today, that the main objective of the aid proposed for Rhodesia is to assist the development and growth of an independent Rhodesian Government. As for the white population, so far from its being our desire that its members should leave, we want all those who wish to stay, and who have the will to stay, to do so and thus help the development of the economy of an independent Rhodesia.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the present Geneva Conference breaks down, through no fault of the Smith regime, it would be quite wrong to continue to impose sanctions on Rhodesia?

No, Sir. I have no doubt that when the conference breaks down—if it breaks down, and I hope and believe that it will not—it will break down in a situation in which no simple attribution of blame is possible. It will break down, if it does, fundamentally because of mistrust, scepticism and hostility born of 11 years of illegal independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present state of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of India.

We maintain normal and good relations with the Government of India and are in close contact with them over a wide range of issues.

In view of the enthusiasm with which the Lord President of the Council and the Archbishop of Canterbury have recently returned from India, will the Minister say whether it is true that elections there have again been postponed, that Opposition Members of Parliament have been imprisoned and that The Times correspondent was recently expelled? If those events are correctly described, is the Minister saying that they have no relevance to the subject of relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government?

We deplore any departure from democratic principles and any violation of human rights in any part of the world, wherever they may occur. I cannot comment officially on any individual cases or policies which are wholly within the domestic jurisdiction of a particular country. The Government of India are in no doubt as to the feelings of Members of this House on the state of emergency in India.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the constitutional talks at Geneva on the future of Zimbabwe.

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

I would refer my hon. Friends and the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) earlier today.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in spite of the pressure to advance the independence date, it is still his policy that in no circumstances will independence be granted other than to a Government constitutionally elected, with a proper mandate?

Yes, Sir; I confirm that that is our intention. Indeed, the fact that we have stuck to that intention has been one of the complications in the disagreements of the last few days. Nevertheless, we cannot allow ourselves in Parliament to be put into a position where we are legalising what is still an illegal regime.

Returning to the answer given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on Question No. 13, may I ask my right hon. Friend to say whether, if the impasse at Geneva continues—and we hope that it will not—he will close his mind and that of the Government to the resumption of any responsibility for security within Rhodesia or Zimbabwe?

It depends what is meant by "any responsibility". What I said in answer to that earlier Question was simply that, if that responsibility involved British armed forces being sent to Rhodesia, Her Majesty's Government would not accept that situation—nor, I believe, would any Conservative Government dream of accepting it.

The Foreign Secretary may have seen a report by a responsible commentator at the beginning of the negotiations suggesting that the British delegation appeared to have gone out of its way to insult Mr. Smith and his delegation. Will he reassure the House on this point and make certain that there is no question of any bias of that kind in future?

I try to read as many responsible commentators as I can, but there are quite a few of them to read every day. I do not recall such a suggestion, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the British Government's negotiators in Geneva do not—I repeat "not"—believe in exchanging insults. In the last few days the main insults have come from Mr. Smith.

If the talks are to be successful, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the urgent necessity of accepting Britain's responsibility in a colonial ter- ritory and in the interim period providing a governor-general backed, once the white officers of the Smith regime have been dismissed, by Commonwealth troops from various countries?

I repeat that Britain has never exercised full colonial responsibility for Rhodesia since 1923—nor indeed before, for quite different reasons. As for the institution of a governor-general, the extent of British involvement will have to be decided in the light of whatever agreement is reached. But I wish to make it clear that the Government rule out in all circumstances any dispatch of British armed forces. As for an international peacekeeping force under the United Nations, the Commonwealth or the OAU, I shall bear that suggestion in mind, but the great objection to such an international force is that it would take an immense amount of time to organise and to get to Rhodesia. It would take a very long time and a great deal of negotiation and bargaining to get this force there. Whatever presence we have must be there from the beginning, which I hope will not be a very long time away.

Is not one of the great dangers that the longer the Smith Government stay in power the greater is the threat of the spread of Communism in Africa?

That is a very acute danger indeed. In my view, there would be no threat of Communism now in that part of Southern Africa—incidentally, one should not exaggerate the threat—and there would be no such threat of any kind at all had Mr. Smith and his illegal regime not refused to budge one inch for 11 long years.

Would I be correct in understanding that the Foreign Secretary no longer entirely rules out the suggestion of myself and of some of my hon. Friends that the presence of a British governor-general, by mutual agreement with the African countries surrounding Rhodesia, might serve as a good guarantor of an independence constitution guaranteeing individual rights, the independence of the courts, and law and order?

No, Sir, I have nothing more to add to what I have already said in answer to questions on this extremely difficult and complex subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the first direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in the United Kingdom.

The Act signed on 20th September provides that the period for the first elections shall be determined by the Council of Ministers after consulting the Assembly. The Governments of the member States are committed to making their best endeavours to hold elections in May or June 1978.

Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" in last year's referendum—

Traitor.

Withdraw.

Order. I am afraid I did not hear the remark. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms. Colquhoun) say "Traitor"?

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I must ask the hon. Lady to withdraw that expression.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Minister aware that even those of us who voted "Yes" at last year's referendum are increasingly concerned that the consequence of direct elections will be additional powers given to the European Parliament and the derogration of powers of this House? Will the Minister make a statement to the House about that aspect of the matter?

I do not think that the issues are related, although it is known that the European Parliament wishes to have more powers, and that over some aspects, such as the control of the Commission, there is a widespread feeling that it is a good idea that the European Parliament should have those powers. But the mere fact of having direct elections does not of itself carry any explicit pledge of greater powers.

Will my right hon. Friend say whether any date for the start of direct elections is laid down in Article 138 of the Treaty of Rome?

To the best of my knowledge, no, Sir.

The right hon. Gentleman has no doubt seen the article in the Economist of last week stating that, if the elections were held under our present corrupt system, the Labour Party would get about five Members if it was lucky, according to present trends. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who were pro-European long before most of those on the two Front Benches would prefer, in 1978, to have continued nomination rather than a rigged election under our corrupt electoral system, which would produce a totally distorted result?

The right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to argue his case. He knows better than anyone that the Select Committee has recommended the use of the system employed at parliamentary elections—that is, the first-past-the-post system—for the first direct election to the European Parliament. The Committee discussed the question of having some unified system throughout the Community which could be applied at a later date, but these are issues that would have to be discussed in relation to any such legislation coming to this House, and no doubt they would be.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Government will be bringing forward appropriate legislation in the next Session, and whether he can indicate at this stage how many seats Scotland is likely to have in a direct elections situation, since we seek parity with other small nations within the European Community?

I cannot and do not intend to prejudge the Queen's Speech, but we have already made it clear that the Government will introduce the legislation at the earliest practical moment.

Is the country not getting into a ridiculous position, in the sense that we shall have elections for this House, elections for Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, votes for county councils, votes for district councils, and then votes in the direct elections to the European Parliament? We shall have more continuous elections than there are in the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers.

I note my hon. Friend's support for elections in all forms, even in the trade union movement, which I, too, strongly support. But I do not deny that, as part of the constitutional changes which are likely to come before the House in the next few years, we shall have to review the whole question of how many elections are held and at what point decisions are made. I am a strong believer in some decentralisation of authority, but clearly this raises serious issues that need to be looked at as a whole and not bit by bit.

The Minister has already referred to the Second Report of the Select Committee. Does he accept the analysis that the Select Committee made after listening to a lot of evidence from the Boundary Commission, namely, that if the Commission was to do its essential work properly Parliament would need to be able to discuss and decide the main issues by the end of February. Does he accept that analysis?

This is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. This is one of the aspects of the Select Committee Report that we are looking at most seriously—how to achieve both early legislation and also carry out the full Boundary Commission procedure. This is a real problem for the House at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his last meeting with his EEC colleagues.

I attended the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 15th and 16th November. On the external relations side, the main items were the reply which the Community should return to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance proposals received earlier this year, which is the subject of the next Question on the Order Paper, and agreement on the Community's Generalised Scheme of Preferences for 1977. The Council also considered a wide range of other external relations questions, on which I shall circulate a statement in the Official Report.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that short statement. Does he net believe that it should have been a statement at the end of Questions, as has been the custom, or are we to conclude, from the fact that it was only an answer to a Question that I happened to have on the Order Paper, that nothing very important was achieved at the conference?

With regard to the first part of the question, I have looked into this, and I find that there is no rule of procedure that makes it mandatory or even a matter of courtesy that an oral statement should be made each time a decision is taken. I hope it is accepted that good will and fair judgment are exercised each time on the question whether the business of the Council justifies a statement, bearing in mind the crowded nature of our business.

Will the Secretary of State say a little more about his discussions with Commissioner Gundelach? Is he aware of the grave concern that exists among fishermen on Humberside about the failure to reach an agreement with Iceland? What additional plans are there in hand for the end of this month?

There is a Question about this matter later on the Order Paper, but as my hon. Friend mentioned Humberside I shall answer it now. I am aware of the deep anxieties felt on Humberside and I am in continuous touch with fishing interests. However, some recent statements have been very unfair to the Community and the Commission in suggesting that no action has occurred on the subject of Icelandic fishing. I have no intention of making a statement today about what might happen after 1st December.

Will the Foreign Secretary say whether the Council of Foreign Ministers arrived at any conclusion about the advice that they might give to OPEC countries on the question of oil price increases in future?

No. This was discussed, but no firm agreement was reached on Community action, as opposed to any action which individual Governments might take bilaterally with the various OPEC countries.

On the subject of passports, is the Foreign Secretary aware that immigration officers at Heathrow will refuse to look at British passports if they are handed in at the desk marked "EEC Passports"? This indicates that these officers have more good sense than some hon. Members in this House.

I am not absolutely certain what reply to give to that question. Fortunately, the situation that my hon. Friend has described is a matter for the Home Office and not the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

rose—

Order. We must be fair to other hon. Members who have Questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position relating to the negotiations regarding a proposed commercial agreement between the EEC and the COMECON countries.

The Community's reply to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance's proposals which were received earlier this year is being handed over today to the President of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance Executive Committee in Warsaw. The Community's reply takes the form of a draft agreement. A letter from the Presidency will be handed over at the same time expressing readiness to open negotiations straight away on this basis.

Will the Minister of State assure the House that there is no proposal for the Community to extend to the Soviet bloc even easier credit terms than those which exist at present? Should not the Community consider whether the existing arrangements, in which Community countries extend to the Soviet bloc very long credits on easy terms, should be re-examined, as they may be contrary to our interests?

I am in some difficulty, because it is impossible, while negotiations are still taking place, to answer detailed questions on the position of the Community in these negotiations. I prefer to await a successful conclusion to the negotiations. It is far better that I should resist being drawn on any aspect of the negotiations.

Will my right hon. Friend refrain from taking notice of such questions? Millions of constituents of Hon. Members on both sides are very dependent on engineering and other orders, which can be obtained on a huge scale from the Soviet Union at present.

I certainly agree to the extent that I hope it will not become a subject of dispute between the two sides of the House that we should trade with COMECON countries. This would be a totally new attitude for the Opposition and I am sure that they do not contemplate it. All hon. Members want a fair and detailed agreement between the Community and the COMECON countries, and this is what we are attempting to negotiate.

The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) mentioned engineering, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that the British wool textile industry is substantially at risk from quotas previously negotiated with COMECON countries? Will he ensure that British interests are well protected?

I assure all hon. Members that in these negotiations we are protecting both British and Community interests, as well as taking a wide look at the whole question of international trade.

Will the Minister of State say whether the missive to the CMEA countries includes a strong recommendation that the negotiations would proceed more favourably and satisfactorily if there were recognition of the Community by CMEA and the COMECON countries?

This is implicit in the negotiations. Once one has made a reply to the COMECON countries and one enters into negotiations, one is much closer to a situation, and, in fact, de facto in a situation of recognition, which has not occurred before.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in renegotiating the EEC common fisheries policy.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten).

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is concern in the inshore fishing industry because too much attention is being paid to the Icelandic situation and the position of third countries? We are equally concerned with the piratical practices of some EEC countries in fishing, and this emphasises the need for exclusive limits for our own fishermen. Is the EEC taking a more sympathetic view in terms of the negotiations for an exclusive limit of at least 50 miles for our fishermen?

I am aware of the anxiety felt among coastal fishermen. The reason why more attention has been paid to Iceland and third countries is that these agreements had to be negotiated by 1st December and the end of the year, respectively. There is no doubt about the critical importance to our country of coastal fishing belts. On the question whether an agreement is likely, some work has been done in the Commission. It has not proceeded very far, because of acute differences of opinion among Community nations about the size of coastal belts. However, we have not changed our negotiating position in the slightest degree since my statement of our definitive position on 4th May.

The fishing community will be grateful for those assurances that safeguarding the position of our inshore fishermen is "critically important". Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is mounting anxiety about both timing and enforcement? Can he give any date for the end of the negotiations for 50-mile limits, and can he say what preparations have been made to police these limits'?

I cannot give a definite date. On the question of enforcement, I can confirm that an enormous amount of work has been done on the question how to police and enforce whatever quota arrangements exist in coastal belts. No set of arrangements that exist on paper are worth the paper they are written on unless there is some policing.

I accept that the issue of limits—whether they be 12, 50 or 200 miles—is a most complex matter, but does the Foreign Secretary agree about the despondency felt in the fishing industry, particularly on Humberside') If the EEC negotiations with Iceland break down will we, as a nation, be able to conduct bilateral talks with Iceland?

Every time we have a question on fisheries we go through this farcical process, in which I am asked whether I am aware of the feelings on Humberside. I am as familiar as anyone else with those feelings. As for what will happen if the negotiations with Iceland fall down, I shall not answer hypothetical questions. I have good hopes that an agreement will be reached, although I have no intention of speculating about its content.

What assurances has the Secretary of State received to ensure the continued economic livelihood of the inshore fishermen of Devon and Cornwall, in particular, in terms of the conservation of mackerel stocks?

The immediate problem facing the Devon and Cornwall fishermen over mackerel concerns the Soviet trawlers. That is why we have pressed very hard the urgency of an agreement between the EEC and the Soviet Union that will have the effect of drastically reducing Soviet and other third country catches in the waters off Devon and Cornwall.

Is it not a mistake to suggest that there is a conflict of interest between deep-sea fishermen and inshore fishermen? Are they not all facing the same problems, which revolve around ensuring that the fishing industry is sustained in as healthy and viable a state as possible'? Are the Government working towards that end?

I hope that I did not give the impression—I had no intention of giving it—that there is a conflict of interest between the two sections of the industry. They are two separate interests, but they are not in conflict. I endorse my hon. Friend's final statement that we need an arrangement that will bring prosperity to the entire British fishing industry, whether inshore or distant water.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the position of the middle-water and seine vessels, and agree that the threat comes from the Russian and Bulgarian fishermen, who pose a great threat not only to us but to the other members of the EEC? Will he bring this matter to the attention of our EEC partners, so that when we have our own 200-mile limit within the Community it is reserved for Community fishermen and is not available to those behind the Iron Curtain?

I am relieved that the hon. Member did not ask me whether I was aware of the strong feelings held in Grimsby and Cleethorpes. In so far as I could hear the later part of his question, I think that I agree with it.

rose—