asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Madrid.

None, Sir.

In advance of his plans to visit Madrid, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to Spain becoming a member of the European Community?

Any application which might be made by the Spanish Government would be to the Community as a whole, and Her Majesty's Government would be only one of the members of the Nine to take a view of it. It is normal practice to consult amongst the Nine before reaching a conclusion on any application. But, clearly, Her Majesty's Government's attitude would be conditioned by the sort of changes towards democracy which are now beginning to occur in Spain and which we welcome.

Have not the King, the Government and the people of Spain made remarkably fast progress in the last year or so towards building a parliamentary democracy, and at this particularly difficult time would it not be right for us to send out from this House a message of our congratulations and good wishes?

The course to be followed by Spain is a matter for the Spanish people themselves without outside interference. It is very much to be hoped that they will soon have a genuinely democratic system of government. But it is for them to decide these matters.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, although we welcome the changes which have occurred since the death of Franco, Her Majesty's Government should not take any steps within the European Community to encourage Spanish membership until there have been full democratic elections in that country?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

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

I have no current plans to visit Washington, but I look forward to a further meeting with the Secretary of State-designate at an early opportunity.

When the Foreign Secretary or his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has an opportunity to pay a visit to Washington or to have consultations with members of the American Government in London, will he make it a high priority to discuss and pursue with the American Government the question of nuclear proliferation? Further, will he reassure the American Government that Her Majesty's Government will give the fullest support to what we believe will be President Carter's efforts to raise this question, to take it further and to see whether we cannot tighten up on the international safeguards which every sensible person wants?

The answer to both questions is in the affirmative. The question of nuclear proliferation played a very substantial part in the United States presidential campaign, and it has been made clear already that the Carter Administration will be giving high priority to this question. That is a matter which we wholeheartedly welcome.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that one priority which we should discuss with the Americans is the early reconvening of the North-South Conference, which has been postponed? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, just as Sheikh Yamani has shown some initiative and leadership in trying to keep down the ever-escalating price of oil, we likewise have a responsibility to see whether some long-term agreement can be made for writing off the debts of the Third World?

The two co-chairmen of the CIEC are at the moment consulting the participant members to try to agree on a renewed date, the conference having been postponed from mid-December, and we shall fit in with any date which is convenient. But it is very hard to fix a date until the new Administration has taken over in the United States. Clearly, talks without them would be counter-productive. When the CIEC reconvenes, however, the West as a whole and not simply this country will need to take a very much more coherent view than it has done so far on what it is prepared to do about debt and the various other questions which have come up in the last 12 months.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the American Government the ways in which a mandatory arms embargo can be applied to South Africa, since the efforts of the British Government to have an embargo have been frustrated by other countries simply filling the vacuum caused by that policy?

It is very important to tighten up wherever we can the United Nations arms embargo which exists already and in which the British Government have participated. I have no evidence that the United States Government are prominent in trying to break this embargo. If my hon. Friend has any evidence, I should be glad if he would send it to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to visit the Condominium of the New Hebrides.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important for Britain to reassure the National Party in the New Hebrides, which looks to Britain for protection, about complex electoral machinery which has given it the majority of votes but denied it the majority of seats and that the system is not simply rigged against it? Is my hon. Friend aware that when independence comes it should be genuine and not subject to the economic domination of the French, who are in the South Pacific, in French Polynesia and New Caledonia, only for nuclear motives? Can my hon. Friend give any target date for independence?

The National Party is the largest single party in the new Assembly. Therefore, there is no doubt that it will play a dominant part in framing proposals for constitutional advance in the New Hebrides. On the second point, there is no question that independence in the New Hebrides will provide a specially privileged place for any particular Power, European or otherwise. So far, no date has been set for independence.

Will the Minister go further and reject this monstrous attack by his hon. Friend on the Westminster electoral system, which is well known and well tried and is guaranteed to ensure that minority interests are represented, and nearly always ensures that the minority are returned as the Government of the day?

I refrain from commenting on the way in which our electoral system operates for the Liberal Party. Let me make clear, however, that the National Party secured the largest number of votes in the election and that it is the largest single party represented in the Assembly.

Has my hon. Friend studied the plans which have been made to deal with defects in the system for registering voters, with the failure to take action to put an end to an illegal radio station, and with violence and intimidation? Will he seek to consult the French authorities to make sure that there are no attempts to frustrate democracy or to cultivate separatist tendencies for purely unnecessary ends?

As my hon. Friend knows, there were a small number of incidents in the recent elections, and in one or two cases special by-elections were held to remedy the situation. Given that the country is not yet fully accustomed to the democratic system, I believe that the elections were held with a considerable degree of success and public participation.

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

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

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

I refer the hon. Members to my statement on Rhodesia of 14th December.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the problem now is the transfer of power not so much from white hands to black but from white hands to non-Marxist black? Does he agree that failure here will mean that Rhodesia will follow the fate of Angola and Mozambique? Will he comment on the recent massacre by guerrilla forces on the Mozambique border?

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's interpretation in the first part of the question, which gives a totally inaccurate view of how matters stand and will stand in the forthcoming talks in Southern Africa. On his second point, clearly there have been atrocities on both sides with an escalation of the guerrilla war, as most people foresaw there would be. We in the Government strongly deplore any atrocities, whoever commits them, but the plain fact is that all this will continue until a settlement is reached.

In view of the recent disgusting atrocity, will the Foreign Secretary tell Mr. Ivor Richard when he starts his tour of Africa that no aid will be given to any of the five front-line countries until those countries, particularly Mozambique, stop giving aid and succour to these murdering guerrillas?

I do not think that it would be a very productive exercise. Accusations of atrocities have been made on both sides. I will not go into them because we have no means of verifying whether they are correct. Atrocities are deplorable, and everyone accepts that, but I have no doubt, as we have discovered in other cases nearer to our borders, that where a civil war of this kind occurs it will be an unpleasant and disagreeable affair.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in view of the Government's public expenditure cuts, that it is not desirable for them to spend vast sums compensating white Rhodesians who, after 10 years of supporting the illegal régime, may now feel that it is time to abandon their property in Rhodesia?

The Government have no intention whatever of offering compensation to people for leaving Rhodesia.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the prime objective of the Geneva Conference must be to find a means of ensuring an orderly interim Government pending the advent of majority rule? Will he assure the House that after Mr. Ivor Richard's visit to the United States and subsequently to Africa the Government will be taking a positive line in the Geneva Conference and will be seeking very hard to use their influence to achieve a right and just settlement?

Yes, I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. Mr. Richard has already been to discuss these matters in New York with Dr. Kissinger and others, and he will be going to Southern Africa armed with very positive proposals from our side. When the conference reconvenes in Geneva, we certainly propose to play as positive and constructive a rôle as we possibly can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to have a meeting with the Foreign Affairs Minister of South Africa.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans for such a meeting.

Bearing in mind the extent to which developments in Rhodesia will inevitably impinge on South Africa, would it not be advisable for such a meeting to be held in the near future? To what extent does the Minister now regard the end of separate development in South Africa as inevitable? Over what time scale will that be? What effect does he think that will have on Britain's supply of vital raw materials?

On the first part of the question, we are in consultation with South Africa, and when Mr. Richard undertakes his shuttle during the Christmas Recess I think that there will be further consultations with the South African Government about Rhodesia. It is difficult at the moment to forecast the impact of the end of separate development on the South African economy or on the international economy. There seems to be no reason to suppose that the South Africans will have a change of heart on this issue.

If the Minister meets the Foreign Secretary of South Africa, will he make clear that the United Kingdom completely stands by the resolution of the United Nations Security Council of 13th January this year and that we shall have nothing to do with any puppet régime set up in Namibia by the South African authorities?

Our views on Namibia are clearly expressed in the United Nations and in other international fora. We cannot support certain recent resolutions on this subject because of their extreme features, but that does not mean that we would support a puppet régime in Namibia.

Given the Government's refusal to accept that the Transkei is no longer a part of South Africa, will the Minister indicate how British interests are represented there?

They are not represented there because we do not recognise it to be an independent sovereign State.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next meet the French Foreign Minister.

My right hon. Friend next expects to meet the French Foreign Minister at the European Economic Community Council of Ministers meeting on 18th January.

I wish the Foreign Secretary the best of British luck during his chairmanship of the Council of Ministers. May I suggest that he might think of getting together with our French friends and giving a clear lead to saying that the British and French want neither more centralisation in the Common Market nor any step taken which would lead us down the road to a federal State? If he did that, it would not only be a very good move but would be very popular in this country.

The hon. Gentleman has his well-known views on the European Community. The issues that he raises concerning centralisation and a federal State have been discussed many times. It is possible to be a strong supporter of the European Community, as I am, and a strong believer in decentralisation, which I also am.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the French Foreign Secretary, will he raise with him the question of securing full co-operation on our policy of refusing to supply arms to South Africa?

Her Majesty's Government's views on the supply of arms to South Africa are well known, as are the views of the French Government. These subjects can be raised in normal bilateral discussions, but I do not think that there is any doubt among the French Government of our views on this issue. We continue to espouse our cause and argue it where appropriate.

As is predictable, the American anti-Concorde industry is hotting up its activities in anticipation of the forthcoming hearings in New York. Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to his French colleagues the vital importance of the British and French Governments remaining in the closest possible contact and co-ordinating their policy on Concorde in the representations they will shortly have to make to the incoming American Government?

Yes, but there is already very close co-ordination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the Argentine.

Relations with Argentina are normal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern about the reported ill treatment of religious and politically concerned groups in Argentina? Will he tell the House of any representations that have been made to the Argentine Government and whether any United Kingdom citizens have been involved?

In recent months there have been a number of individual British citizens affected in one way or another. We have made every representation to the Argentine Government in individual British cases. As for the general position in Argentina, obviously the Argentine Government will be fully aware of the widespread international concern, which might, for example, have affected some of the decisions and actions that they have taken in respect of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a matter on which we have received a large number of letters from Members on both sides of the House. We have no direct locus. I understand that there is no individual British citizen involved in the case of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Does my hon. Friend accept that Argentina is seen by a large number of refugees from other countries in the South American orbit as a place of refuge, only to arrive there and, as in the case of the Whitelaw family, who were British nationals, to be murdered by some maverick Right-wing band? Will he therefore make every attempt to try to ensure that refugees from that country who apply to this country are given some sort of precedence to get them here in safety?

I think that our record on political refugees from South America stands any comparison and is comparable with that of any other nation. We have done our best to help political refugees from South America.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the British Government's negotiations with Guatemala over the State of Belize.

Five meetings have been held this year in the current negotiations with Guatemala on the future of Belize, two of them at ministerial level. British proposals for a settlement have been discussed but some fundamental issues have yet to be resolved.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Belizeans wish to keep our presence in the country until there is a just settlement? Is he further aware that our forces in Belize are doing a magnificent job for us that is not realised in this country? Further, what is happening about a Belizean defence force of their own?

I am sure that everyone would wish to be associated with the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the rôle, function and part that the British forces are playing in Belize. I am happy to say that in principle we support the development of a defence force, and the Premier, Mr. Price, has been so informed.

In the light of the overwhelming support for Britain's policy for Belize at the United Nations, will the hon. Gentleman convey to Guatemala that international opinion expects it to co-operate with Britain in reaching an early and honourable settlement—in fact, a settlement that responds to the overwhelming wishes of the Belizeans?

I am sure that the Guatemalan Government are more than conscious of the international support for Belizean aspirations for independence. The negotiations that I have been conducting over the past 12 months are at a delicate stage. We hope to achieve an early negotiated settlement with Guatemala on this 150-year-old problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now prepared to reappoint an ambassador in Santiago.

My right hon. Friend continues to keep this matter under review in the light of our relations with Chile.

But is it not just possible that certain changes are overtaking the regime in Chile and that it would be wise for this country to be fully represented so that those changes can be properly assessed? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that we cannot for ever govern our relations with this important Latin American country on the basis of the prejudice of some of his hon. Friends?

Our relations with Chile have not been based on the prejudice of any Members. The withdrawal of our ambassador from Chile, which received support from both sides of the House, as the House will recall, took place in circumstances which the House understood as a result of the circumstances that arose in the case of Dr. Cassidy. There have been releases of political prisoners, which we welcome, but there are still many more detained for basically political offences. We see no change at present in the basic nature of the regime to indicate that we should modify our policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that concern has recently been expressed about the slowness of admission of refugees from Chile to this country? As visas are a matter for the Home Office—at least, that is the case with entry certificates—will he discuss the matter with the Home Office to ensure that there is no hold-up or delay?

We have regular discussions with the Home Office about visas and entry certificates for refugees from Chile, as from other parts of South America, and we have done our best to speed up the processes.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether Her Majesty's Government still support the traditional criteria for the granting of diplomatic recognition—namely, the claiming of an advantage rather than the conferment of a compliment? If that is so, will he explain why it is that in Chile, where we have some thousands of British subjects who may at some time require the protection of a British mission, we have broken off diplomatic relations whereas, by contrast, in Cambodia, the scene of one of the greatest acts of genocide, running to perhaps 800,000 people murdered in recent months, we have established relations? What is the logic either in morality or in practicality behind such a policy?

We have not broken off diplomatic relations with the Chilean Government. We have diplomatic relations. We withdrew our ambassador because of a distasteful, dislikeable and terrible incident involving a British citizen. Before such action was taken we made tremendous efforts to persuade the Chilean Government, through diplomatic channels and through our ambassador, to do the right and proper thing. The fact that the Chilean Government did not do it forced us to take appropriate action, which was widely supported in the country at the time. That was the decision taken in relation to Chile, which was taken in the light of a specific incident and a specific problem and has no bearing on our relations with other countries or the way in which we conduct our affairs with other nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British attitude in the recent debate in the United Nations on Cyprus.

Unfortunately the non-aligned resolution was tabled with insufficient time to secure more acceptable amendments to it and so Britain, with a number of other countries, abstained.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Britain has a special and major responsibility as a guarantor to the independence of Cyprus? In view of the continuing disturbing reports coming from the island through, for example, the United Nations civilian police reports, part of which were published recently, about the expulsion by the Turks of Greek Cypriots and looting in the North, does he agree that the Greek Cypriots are entitled to feel somewhat embittered by the lack of action on the part of the British Government? Will he seek a meeting with the Turkish Government to discuss the matter fully?

I share my hon. Friend's concern. In fact, I discussed many of these issues with both Turkish and Cypriot individuals when I was in Cyprus very recently. We are all of us concerned at reports that Greek Cypriots in the north of Cyprus have been forced against their wishes to leave their homes and that looting is taking place. I think that the inter-communal talks should be the area in which we can look at these humanitarian questions. Whatever the reason for the exodus from the North, it is not calculated to improve the overall climate and atmosphere in Cyprus or the chances of achieving a settlement.

Surely the Government should now realise that there has not been any measure of success through the United Nations and that it is now time for a new initiative to be taken, as has been suggested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, with the countries of the EEC, after securing their agreement, and in association with the new régime in America. Will the Government now seek a really good British initiative, together with the EEC and the President of the United States, to ensure that there is a just and lasting solution by bringing together the people of Turkey and Cyprus?

The British Government have been pursuing those objectives for the past few months. Intensive discussions have taken place within the European Economic Community and through the vehicle of political co-operation and discussions with the United States Administration. We fully support the concepts outlined in Dr. Kissinger's speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, many of which had been discussed among member nations.

Is not my right hon. Friend now announcing the end of the Commonwealth as such? Is not Cyprus a member of the Commonwealth, and are not a Government outside the Commonwealth—the Turkish Government—using their armed forces stationed in the northern part of Cyprus to accelerate or escalate the number of expulsions of Greek citizens from the North of the territory to the South? Therefore, have the British Government now washed their hands of all responsibilities there? Are we saying that progress in the matter can be made only as a result of intercommunal talks?

No, Sir. That is certainly not our position. We think that inter-communal talks could be, and in the last analysis will be, the only way of reaching a settlement, but if there can be some outside help we stand ready to provide it. As for my hon. Friend's allegations about the Commonwealth, Cyprus remains a full member of the Commonwealth. What everyone on both sides wants is to see full democratic participation of Turkish and Greek Cypriots, with the two communities brought together.

Will the Minister take a personal interest in the plight of some 2,000 people who are missing following the Turkish invasion, and see what can be done quietly and diplomatically to release them from Turkey, if they can be found?

When I visited Cyprus 1 discussed not only the problem of missing persons, which is very serious, but the question of displaced people. I also discussed with some Greek Cypriots living in camps outside their homes their difficult personal problems. The facts are clear. We must bring the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities together and forge again a proper Government of Cyprus, capable of speaking for all the people, and break down some of the historic enmities. But this will be very difficult to achieve.

Reverting to my right hon. Friend's original answer, may I ask whether on second thoughts he does not consider that our vote at the United Nations was very wishy-washy? Now that he is fully in command of the Cyprus situation in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will he ensure that that sort of attitude in the United Nations is not repeated and that we take the lead in producing an initiative on Cyprus while we have the chairmanship of the EEC Council of Ministers?

Any United Nations resolution needs time. Those who wish to achieve the maximum amount of agreement and consensus must seek the agreement of member nations. That was not done in this case. I believe that if it had been done it would have been possible to achieve a resolution which commanded much more support.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Thailand since the coup d-état of 6th October 1976.

Her Majesty's Government maintain normal diplomatic relations with the present Government of Thailand. Our friendship for the Thai people is longstanding.

Will my hon. Friend find a convenient way of expressing revulsion at the murder, torture and imprisonment of Thai journalists, students, teachers and others since the coup? Will he note that many of us, at least on the Labour Benches, would utterly deprecate the sale of Centurion tanks to the new régime, if the reports that agreement has been reached on the matter are confirmed?

In the first part of his question it sounded to me as though my hon. Friend was referring to the incident at Thammasat University, which occurred just before the present Government in Thailand took power.

Since.

The main incidents of which we have knowledge occurred when the transition was taking place. Therefore, the present Government cannot take the responsibility. My hon. Friend knows that we do not give details about our arms sales to individual Governments, but I can say that present sales are on a very small scale.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Thailand is under some threat from her eastern frontiers—some think a considerable threat? Will he confirm that our obligations, such as they are, under the SEATO Treaty still stand?

the degree of threat to Thailand from her eastern borders is a matter of opinion. Certainly, all existing commitments remain.

Inspired, although perhaps less boldly, by the courageous conduct yesterday of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) and his hon. Friends below the Gangway are dreaming of the day when the whole of Indo-China is Communist?

I do not think for a moment that my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), whom I know very well, is dreaming of that outcome. If my hon. Friend is concerned about the interruption of democratic Government in Thailand, I entirely share his concern, and I hope that Conservative Members also share it.

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

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

Even so, will the hon. Gentleman accept my thanks for his efforts and those of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on behalf of my constituent, Mr. Balaam? Is he aware that my constituent has still not been paid the money owed to him after more than three years, and that the Zambian authorities are still obstructing the payment? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the time may come when we must make it plain to Governments in receipt of foreign aid from this country that that aid is conditional upon their ending the bilking of British subjects?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have dealt with a number of cases concerning personal remittances from Zambia that hon. Members on both sides of the House have brought to my attention. Hon. Members will appreciate the Zambian Government's very difficult problem of foreign exchange reserves. We have been making quite good progress. I do not think that attaching conditions to our programme of aid to Zambia would help deal with individual problems that hon. Members have raised with me in the past few months.

The hon. Gentleman has stressed the problem of foreign exchange. Would not this be an appropriate time for him to have discussions with the Zambian Government about their problem of dealing with the many thousands of refugees who have streamed across the border from Angola? Will he then perhaps deal with the problems of those refugees who have moved into South-West Africa, again under pressure from the Cuban-led forces in Angola, and see what we can do to help?

We have regular consultations with the Zambian Government on many issues of bilateral concern. Many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman raised are for the Zambian Government alone and are not of particular British concern.

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

The security situation in Rhodesia continues to give cause for grave concern and underlines the need for an early settlement.

Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary appreciate that terrorist activity in Rhodesia, particularly the murder on Sunday night of 27 unarmed African civilians, is bound to reduce support for moderate opinion in Rhodesia and outside, and that without such moderate opinion it will be very hard to reach a settlement? What is he personally doing to put this fundamental point over to the front-line Presidents in Africa?

I recognise only too well that atrocities by whichever side—hot pursuit raids, whether into Mozambique or into Rhodesia—will do nothing to make a moderate settlement any easier. I accept what the hon. Gentleman said on that. But the important influence that the British Government can exercise is not to make our views known to the two sides—those views are perfectly well known already—but to do everything we can to bring about a settlement, which alone will bring atrocities to an end.

Has my right hon. Friend seen a statement by Mr. Joshua Nkomo that his life has been threatened in Rhodesia? What has he done to protect African Rhodesian leaders returning to Rhodesia to meet their people?

I fully accept that the British Government have a great deal of responsibility in these matters, but our responsibility does not extend to the protection of individual African leaders in Rhodesia. We have no armed forces or police there or in any of the surrounding countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the horror and distaste that the British people hold for these continuing acts of terrorism, which are causing such suffering not only to whites but, above all, to the black population of Rhodesia? Will he explain why he has not made representations to the Government of the Soviet Union, who are responsible for arming, equipping and training these forces?

I have already made it clear today, and do so again, that I share the general feeling of horror and distaste although I hope that when the hon. Gentleman expresses horror and distaste in future he will do so in a more evenhanded way than he has done today, because this is not simply a one-sided business. It is two-sided. As for the Soviet Union and any intervention it is carrying out or intends to carry out in Southern Africa, we have made it clear to the Soviet Government that, if they believe in detente, detente is a worldwide concept covering Southern Africa also and is not confined to Europe.

Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure us that Mr. Ivor Richard, in his visits to Africa, has been guided by the right hon. Gentleman very firmly to bring to the notice of the frontline Presidents how gravely these incidents affect the whole course of the Geneva Conference and the attainment of a just and reasonable settlement?

Yes, Sir. Mr. Richard will bring this to the attention of the front-line Presidents, and, similarly, when he goes to Salisbury, as he certainly will, he will draw the attention of the Government there to the views held by most people here, if not by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), about some of the hot-pursuit incidents that we have seen and some allegations made against the white security forces by the Catholic Institute of International Relations.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

On 18th January 1977, when, following the United Kingdom's first assumption of the Presidency, I shall chair the next meeting of the Council of Ministers.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to make that a historic event by marking his chairmanship by getting agreement on a new fisheries regime? Is he aware of the statement by the Minister of State yesterday that if there is gross over-fishing in January it will be difficult to control? Will he accept that many people in the fishing industry are genuinely concerned about how seriously he takes this matter? Does he regard it as sufficiently serious a crunch issue to say that he will withdraw from participation in the Council of Ministers and prevent a unanimous decision being taken unless our interests are recognised in this issue?

Anyone in the fishing industry who thinks that I do not take fishing seriously must be out of his mind.

Tell that to the North Sea skippers.

As for agreeing to give priority to getting a proposal accepted for an interim regime in January, the answer is "No", unless that regime suits the interests not only of Humberside fishermen but of those off the coast of Scotland. It is only given that condition that we would accept an interim fisheries regime.

Are these Common Market meetings doing any good at all? Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it seems to me that every time we have these meetings they finish up with Britain going under once again, as with the recent remarks made about fishing? When he meets his colleagues again—if he finds he has to—will he tell them that we obliged them by borrowing £2,300 million in order that we could go on financing their manufactured goods in the Common Market, which in the year of reckoning totalled £912 million sold to us in excess of what we sold to them, and that that situation will be even worse this year?

Yes, Sir. I shall try to incorporate some of those statesmanlike sentiments.

Has the right hon. Gentleman yet discussed with his Community colleagues the important point he made recently at the NATO ministerial meeting about the risks involved in the transfer of resources from the West to the Soviet Union, in that it might help the Soviet Union to achieve its objectives in the Third World and to manufacture goods which would be sold to Western countries at unfair prices? If so, what was the reaction of his colleagues?

I cannot say that there was a single conclusion, since these Councils do not pass resolutions, but the matter was discussed at the last European Council, and I would like an opportunity to raise it again because I attach great importance to it.

When my right hon. Friend meets his Common Market colleagues, will he suggest a joint approach to Mr. Brezhnev to express, first, the delight of the House at the release of Mr. Bukovsky from prison and, secondly, the disgust of the House at the arrest of 30 professors and their wives in Moscow yesterday, and, thirdly, to suggest that if Mr. Brezhnev really wants détente he should beat his new sword into ploughshares and release from prison those whose only crime is that they want to emigrate to Israel?

I, too, welcome, on grounds of personal liberty, the release of Mr. Bukovsky and the exchange which occurred, although it is an appalling commentary on these two totalitarian régimes that an incident like this had to occur. We lose no opportunity of pressing these points on visiting Soviet officials, whoever they may be, and a large part of the time taken up in the discussions with Mr. Ponomarev a few weeks ago was on precisely the matters my hon. and learned Friend has raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the European Community's progress with plans to introduce direct elections to the European Parliament by 1978.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next have discussions with other EEC Ministers on arrangements for direct elections to the European Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to discuss direct elections to the European Parliament with his EEC ministerial colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet his EEC colleagues to discuss direct elections to the European Parliament.

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to discuss arrangements for direct elections with his EEC colleagues. The Council will in due course need to determine the date of the first elections, but it is for member States first to take the necessary steps in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Government have committed themselves to introduce the legislation this Session.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm none the less that the European Parliament, for example, would be seriously disappointed if the Foreign Secretary did not refer at length to the prospects for direct elections during his scheduled visit on 12th January to Luxembourg? Will the Minister of State also confirm that, since the European Governments have definitely decided that these direct elections should take place at the same time, the biggest impediment to that would be the British Government if the appropriate Bill were not introduced immediately in the new year?

The timing of the legislation is still under consideration. It will be influenced by the progress being made on other major constitutional issues before the House. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's plea to make an extensive reference to this in his speech to the European Parliament, and 1 shall at least make sure that he notes the suggestion.

When does my right hon. Friend intend to have preliminary talks with the Boundaries Commission with a view to establishing electoral divisions within the United Kingdom?

That is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I will draw his attention to my hon. Friend's question. It is one of the matters which must be considered in the question of the timing of the introduction of the legislation and is, perhaps, the biggest problem we have in meeting the date of May-June 1978.

Have any of the member States indicated that they insist on a list system for the direct elections? Do the Government favour a regional responsibility? If so, what progress does the right hon. Gentleman hope to make to stop us from being saddled with a list system?

The hon. Lady will know that many of these issues were discussed by the Select Committee which looked into the matter. It is recognised that it will not be possible to have a uniform electoral system operating for all nine member countries on the first elections to the European Parliament, but it is envisaged and hoped that it should be possible for the next round of elections.

Why is the Minister of State being so coy? Is he trying to stall and to say that we shall not have the elections? Can he not say when the Bill will be published and when we shall have its Second Reading? Cannot he answer his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) about the Boundaries Commission? Granted that it is the Home Secretary's responsibility, can he not say what will happen about it? Are not the Government committed to the Bill, or are they now back-pedalling, as they are on most other things?

The hon. Gentleman will have to get used to the fact that responsibility for direct elections does not lie with my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The main responsibility lies with the Home Secretary, as is the case with all electoral changes that are introduced. I should obviously like to be able to tell the House a date for Second Reading of the Bill, but I am in no position to do so at present.

Do the Government intend to comply with the provision in the Treaty of Rome that any direct elections must take place in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States?

I thought that I had already covered that point in answer to an earlier question. I think it is widely recognised that it will not be possible to do this in the first round of elections. It is a hope, and my right hon. Friend is right to draw the attention of the House to the Treaty of Rome in this regard. It will not be the first case, or the last, I suspect, when the literal interpretation of the Treaty of Rome is not followed.

Is it not better that we should be entirely frank with our European partners and tell them that as we shall probably have to have 81 individual inquiries before the Boundary Commissioners, which is essential if we have a single-Member system, which is archaic, unequal and capable of every sort of change, permutation and combination, there is not a hope in hell under that system that we shall be ready by 1978? Some of us think that it would be better to have nominations that do not pretend to be democratic rather than a bogus system that is not democratic.

This will have to be discussed. The Select Committee drew attention to many of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman made a dissenting note on a number of its recommendations relating to the electoral system. His views on this subject are not entirely unknown to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

The Minister of State has told us in the presence of the Leader of the House that the Foreign Office is not responsible for the delay in publishing the Bill. Who is responsible? It is, after all, five months since the Prime Minister agreed with his colleagues on the number and distribution of seats within the Community, and four months since the Select Committee gave its views of what it thought were urgent matters. If the delay continues into the new year, will it not undermine our bargaining strength inside the Community, given that it has been agreed inside the Community—as the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) does not seem to realize—that if any one member fails to achieve the target date the whole enterprise founders?

I have not made any such allegation that someone else is responsible for the delay. As the hon. Gentleman should know, the publication of a Bill precedes its Second Reading usually by only a few weeks. That is quite common practice. Anyone who has been concerned in the House over the last few weeks during this Session will have realised that some of the legislation that has been passing through the House had to be put through the House for specific and special reasons, in some cases to be able to operate, such as in the case of the Fishery Limits Bill, by 1st January. That is why that legislation has had to take priority over other legislation. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take note of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the arrangements made for public access to EEC documents, including those originating from the European Assembly.

No, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to his Written Question on 16th December.

That reply merely said that my right hon. Friend was continuing to investigate this matter. I know that he has been doing so carefully for three months. Will he say whether the public have a list which is equivalent to that provided by the demand form for EEC papers which is available to hon. Members? Does he agree that, if they do not already have access to it, when a system is permanently brought into operation they should have equivalent access to an equivalent list?

My hon. Friend well knows that I am dissatisfied with the arrangements. When I look into the matter—I am still doing so—one of the problems that I meet is cost. That is not a mile away from the issue of public expenditure. It is perfectly possible to produce a system that will give access to the public, but it will be costly. We must bear in mind that a system already exists in the European Communities Information Office in London.

No, it does not.

I have arranged for people to go to that office and ask for certain documents, so I have had some "consumer investigation" of the situation. I am not totally satisfied, but I am afraid that any ambitious scheme which would resolve this problem would not be justified on the ground of cost. I am looking at ways in which matters might be improved, and we are discussing it with Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

Will the Minister of State assist in ensuring that EEC documents, when placed before the House for debate, are in the latest form of such documents and not in a form which is already obsolete?

The Scrutiny Committee has drawn attention to that fair and valid criticism. We have slipped up on a number of occasions. We shall do our best in this matter. The problem is that many of the documents go through three or four revises before coming before the House. There has also been a problem over numbering in order to ensure that dates on the documents are clear. We shall do our best in the matter and, if necessary, issue explanatory memoranda covering changes that have occurred in the documents. This is a difficult problem, which is not easy to circumvent.

On the whole question of public access, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss with other Foreign Ministers the strange way in which the legislative functions of the Council of Ministers are performed? Is he aware of the strength of the criticism that he will meet in the European Parliament and elsewhere, and that this is the only case in the whole democratic world where Ministers legislate in secret?

Over the last few months I have looked into this question. It was raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) earlier. It is true to say that there is a considerable resistance to doing this, but one of the problems is that there is no immediate parallel to Community decision-making. In some senses the Council of Ministers is a Cabinet. In some senses it is a legislature. The two functions frequently fuse together, as my right hon. Friend, with his experience in these things, knows well. There are great difficulties in trying to achieve a compromise between nine nations and in exposing that compromise procedure to public gaze. There are arguments on both sides, and I think that we should be perfectly prepared, open-minded, to keep the matter under review.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement upon the talks in Brussels with EEC Foreign Ministers regarding the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and relations between the EEC and Iceland.

I did so yesterday.

I am not quite sure that I heard my right hon. Friend's reply. However, in view of yesterday's statement and the discussion that we had then, I should like to ask two factual questions. First, when will the legislation on 200-mile limits come into force after 1st January? This matter is vital to our Navy and its operations and the job that it has to do. Secondly, the Yorkshire Post has informed us that telegrams have been sent from Humberside to the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Industry concerning deputations to discuss matters affecting Humberside. Is it possible to have an answer to them today?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is still considering the telegram that he has received about Humberside, and with a great deal of sympathy, as he is well aware of the problems. I confirm that the legislation will be operating from 1st January. We shall be taking all the necessary measures to ensure enforcement, across a very extensive area of water. I hope that hon. Members are under no illusions about that. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's main points.

asked the hon. Member for Kingswood, as representing the Church Commissioners, what communications have taken place during the past 12 months between the Church Commissioners and English China Clays at St. Austell regarding the safety of the company's employees.

Letters were exchanged in March of this year relating to one specific case of an employee who was awarded damages following a claim that he had contracted the chest disease kaolinosis, caused by inhaling clay dust. The Commissioners are satisfied that the company's safety regulations and systems are conscientiously applied and kept under close review in consultation with the unions and the work force.

Many people appreciate the Church Commissioners' interest in the safety of employees. However, will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Church Commissioners looked into the safety record of the company before seeking so much publicity for this case? If they did, what did they find? If they did not, why did they not do so?

The Church Commissioners deeply regret that the substance of the recent Church Investors' meeting should have been leaked to the general public. This discussion was agreed among the denominations that were present and considered by all concerned to be informal and confidential. It is in keeping with the Commissioners' declared policy of discussing informally and confidentially with company management ethical and social matters such as this. But certainly we have taken steps to send people down to see the position at first hand, and we are perfectly satisfied with the safety provisions there.