asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards a settlement in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place between himself and the new United States Secretary of State designed to secure a permanent peace settlement in the Middle East.

The Government remain anxious to take whatever practical steps may be open to them to assist in the search for a settlement in the Middle East. As my right hon. Friend said in the House on 19th January, before coming to a conclusion we need to know the approach of the new United States Administration. We are already exchanging views with them on this subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that not for many years has there been a better opportunity of achieving a peaceful settlement in the Middle East? While the main burden of bringing this about falls on the United States, Europe has a major contribution to make as well, because the consequences of a renewed war would be disastrous for Europe. Is the Foreign Secretary discussing with his colleagues what initiative Europe can take at this stage irrespective of the American attitude?

I agree that the prospects look better than they have done for many years, but that does not mean that there are not substantial difficulties. As I have told the House, discussions took place on Monday among the EEC Foreign Ministers within the framework of political co-operation, and we all welcome very much the decision of the new American Secretary of State to visit the area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the people of Palestine, who have suffered most in the Middle East conflict, have been consulted least? Will he impress upon Mr. Vance, the new United States Secretary of State, that they should and must be involved in the negotiations and that the United States ought to use their influence to help them?

Palestinian participation is directly a matter for the parties. As my right hon. Friend said in his speech to the General Assembly on 5th October, one essential element in a settlement will be land for the Palestinians.

In view of the recent happenings in Egypt and the concern one has that Egyptian good will should be reinforced, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he is in close consultation with President Sadat and his Government to ensure that no opportunity is lost to try to bring about the kind of meetings that are necessary to resolve this difficult problem?

Yes. The internal problems, which I hope are only temporary, are a matter for the Egyptian Government, but there are close links between us and the Egyptian Government. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said. I think President Sadat might play a notable part in the cause of moderation in bringing the Arab world together to form agreed views on the approach to a settlement in this area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the sort of pressures allegedly being applied to the Metal Box Company to submit to the blackmail of the Arab boycott are hardly likely to induce an atmosphere for a settlement but will rather cast doubt on the bona fides of the people applying the pressure? Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the Government's opposition to this boycott?

I readily do so in quite unequivocal terms. We are opposed to the boycott and we do not think it will achieve the ends that the people behind it think it will achieve.

Does the Minister accept that the moderate OPEC Powers of Saudia Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are looking to the West for a reciprocal gesture of moderation, particularly regarding the search for a possible peace settlement? Assuming that Europe always follows America's coat tails, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to fall into that trap because there have been so many messages, both public and private, to the European Powers, including Britain, that Arab Powers are looking for a European meeting on the subject?

I do not think that we are conducting our foreign policy on the coat tails of the United States Administration. That has never been my view. I do, however, see the United States as one of our strongest and most powerful allies, and I have no hesitation in telling the House that we shall conduct our foreign policy in the fullest co-operation with the United States and consult them at all stages when we think it appropriate.

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's assurance that we do not intend to carry on our policy on the coat tails of the United States, may I ask whether we may have a guarantee that we shall not be waiting for Godot step by step with regard to European policy in the Middle East? Surely 1977 presents a supreme opportunity for the European countries, particularly Britain, to play a constructive rôle.

We will play a constructive rôle and we will use our chairmanship and the presidency of the Council in as helpful a way as possible, both in coordinating the views of the Nine and in establishing close relationships with the United States. However, in various parts of the world we shall have the choice as to which countries have a considerable leverage and responsibility. I am quite clear that in the Middle East the United States is still the country with some of the strongest leverage in order to bring about a settlement in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what criteria he employs in giving general guidance to British banks operating in foreign countries as to the policy which such banks, particularly when they are operated as local companies in which local capital is invested, should apply to the investments which they make in the Government securities of the country concerned.

My right hon. Friend does not give general guidance on the policy to be adoped by British banks operating in foreign countries.

May I direct the attention of the Minister of State to three specific issues raised by his recent action in connection with Barclays Bank? First, are we to conclude from this that the policy hitherto shown by Her Majesty's Government towards multinationals that they should obey the laws of the country in which they operate is to have a specific exception in the case of Southern Africa? Secondly, and perhaps more important, is the Minister aware that the countries in which Barclays Bank operates have recently been illustrated on a page of the The Times? Are these countries now to be graded in some order of moral reprehensibility? If so, will he tell the House what that order is? As there is no such order at the moment, perhaps he will say by what authority he called the general manager of Barclays Bank to the Foreign Office and ticked him off. Finally, and perhaps most important of all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long".]—

I was, in any case, about to ask the Minister to reply to one out of the three.

The answer is "No" to virtually all that the hon. Gentleman asked. He misrepresents completely the nature of my meeting with Mr. Dolling, who came to discuss with me his bank's policy which was reflected in the statement that he made.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in a statement which I have obtained from South Africa, Mr. Dolling is reported to have said that there was nothing that he and his colleagues could do to affect the daily decisions of Barclays Bank in South Africa? In other words, although the bank ticked off the South African subsidiary for doing what it has done, it now says "We can do nothing to interfere with it, although we are the holding company." Is not the bank holding up the Foreign Office to ridicule?

There is no question of ridicule, even though my hon Friend uses terms like that. Mr. Dolling said that it was the bank's policy to do everything possible to ensure that such action would not recur.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current progress of the negotiations at Vienna on mutual balanced force reductions.

No breakthrough has yet occurred in the efforts of the Western participants to reach an agreement with the Warsaw Pact on the basis of our common ceiling proposals. The latest round of the negotiations is just beginning.

Is it not unsatisfactory that, after three years of negotiations on force reductions, the figures recently tabled at Vienna show that there has actually been an increase in the numbers of troops on both sides rather than a cut in the period of the talks? Can my right hon. Friend say why the British Government are resisting the concept of national sub-ceilings since, if meaningful reductions are ever to be reached, it is clear that they will have to be translated into national figures?

I agree with my hon. Friend and I regret that progress has been extremely disappointing. We can only hope that we shall be able to build on the work which has been done over the past three years to make more rapid progress in the next year or two. The Soviet proposal for equal percentage reductions by each participant would result in the imposition of a permanent limitation on the forces and equipment of each of the Western participants in the reduction area. If we were to accede to that demand, it would mean in practice that members of the Alliance would no longer be free to co-operate with each other in whatever ways might be necessary to ensure the collective security of the West. I think that that would be wrong.

Can the Minister give a positive assurance that there will be no weakening of the British commitment to NATO except within the framework of the understandings reached in the negotiations for mutual and balanced force reductions?

Yes, unequivocally.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with the Foreign Minister of Czechoslovakia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has plans to make an official visit to Prague.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has for returning the visit of the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister before the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe follow-up meeting in Belgrade.

I last had talks with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister when he visited London from 13th to 16th September last year. I have no present plans to go to Prague.

Although I welcome the reported discussions between the Minister of State and the Czechoslovak Ambassador yesterday, will the Secretary of State nevertheless seek the earliest opportunity to have a meeting with the Czechoslovak Foreign Minister with a view to conveying to him the overwhelming view of the British Parliament sympathising with the Charter '77 group in its stand against all violations of human rights in Czechoslovakia? Similarly, will the right hon. Gentleman say that there can be no detente unless the Czechoslovak regime and other Communist regimes show a greater respect for individual freedom?

There can be no doubt about the feelings on all sides of the House on the issue of Charter '77 and its declaration. The Government share the views expressed by the hon. Member, and we have conveyed to the Czechoslovak regime our profound concern about the treatment now being meted out to certain of the signatories of Charter '77. Our commitment to human rights remains absolutely firm and strong, and this kind of incident is bound to come up at the Belgrade Review Conference and is bound to colour some of the discussions there.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that more than 70 Members of Parliament on the left and centre of the Parliamentary Labour Party who have campaigned on Left-wing and anti-imperialist causes such as Chile and Vietnam have signed a statement in solidarity with the signatories of Charter '77? Will he convey to the Czechoslovak authorities that many of us are absolutely horrified by this repression and regard it as totally incompatible with genuine Socialism?

I agree entirely. There is no question of left, right or centre on an issue of this kind. There is absolute unanimity in the House that this kind of suppression of human rights and free speech—and this is not the only recent example from Eastern Europe but is probably the most dramatic of them—is not tolerable and acceptable to Western opinion and that, if this sort of thing continues, there is no doubt that the prospects for a successful outcome of the Belgrade Conference will be diminished greatly.

Will my right hon. Friend accept the thanks of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House for the rebuke issued yesterday to the Czechoslovak Government by Lord Goronwy-Roberts, which should remind the Czechoslovak Government that their country is no longer a far-away place about which we care little? Because we care about it, ought we not to say to the Czechoslovak Government that the personal smear tactics used against Ludvik Vaculik and others of the Charter '77 movement and the attempt to involve Western correspondents are not merely in the slimiest traditions of the KGB but are also imperilling both the reputation of Czechoslovakia and the whole Belgrade Conference?

I think that the whole House will deplore the tactics being used against the signatories of Charter '77. They are also being used against certain British citizens, including two former ambassadors who have been grotesquely accused of acting as British spies—an accusation in which, I need hardly say, there is not an ounce of truth.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say the extent to which his intelligence sources reveal a build-up of Russia's armed forces in Czechoslovakia and Poland since the beginning of December?

No, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give a date for the reconvening of the Geneva Conference on Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement about the prospects of a peaceful solution.

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

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

I would refer the hon. Members to my statement of 25th January.

Does the Secretary of State see any sign of a new initiative coming forth?

I prefer not to give a definite answer to that because Mr. Ivor Richard has arrived back only today and I want to hear his personal and detailed report. I have had conversations this morning with Ambassador Andrew Young, who is due to go to South Africa tonight. I prefer not to make a statement about new initiatives until I have had time, as I said a week or two ago, to make a cool and detailed appraisal of the situation as it now exists.

Is the Secretary of State aware that by departing from the Kissinger package he ensured the failure of the Geneva Conference? Is he aware, further, that his continual refusal to recognise any talks or agreement between Mr. Smith and non-Marxist Africans may condemn Rhodesia to the fate of Angola?

The immediate factor which is condemning Rhodesia to a further and probably aggravated period of guerrilla warfare is Mr. Smith's rejection even of the proposals that we put to him as the basis for further discussion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tactic of using Mr. Vorster as an ally or quasi honest broker has failed and that it is important now that the Western world should make it clear that it is allied with the front-line Presidents and African opinion and not with South Africa?

I think that the Western world has made it abundantly clear again and again—not merely the British Government, but the Nine in their declaration issued on Monday and the new United States Administration in its statement last week—that it stands unequivocally for majority rule in Rhodesia. It is no good ignoring the existence of the South African Government. That Government are a factor in the situation, but the general moral and political position of the Western world has been made repeatedly and totally clear.

Does not the Foreign Secretary realise that Mr. Smith, in his broadcast in September last year, accepted the principle of majority rule within a given time limit? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his inability to come before us now with any kind of position to try to fill the serious vacuum which has been created by his dilatoriness and inattention to this matter is deplored very deeply?

Mr. Smith appears to have accepted the principle but to have rejected any possible means whereby that principle might have been achieved. As for dilatoriness, as I said in answer to the right hon. Gentleman a few days ago it is absurd to suppose that a problem which has baffled successive Governments for 11 years could conceivably be settled in a matter of weeks, or even months. It is bound to take much longer than that.

Even if the Geneva Conference is not reconvened, will my right hon. Friend keep in contact with the Zimbabwe African leaders to prepare for the day of majority rule? Does he agree that the Smith regime would collapse within days if it was not sustained by the Vorster regime in South Africa?

We shall certainly seek to keep in contact with the nationalist leaders. They should also seek to keep in contact with us, however. It was not particularly helpful for Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to decline to meet Mr. Richard a few days ago. There must be a sensible give and take on this issue. We do not have the power to dictate to South Africa what its policy should be. I merely reiterate that in the total Southern African picture South Africa is a force and influence which cannot be neglected.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity which this matter offers of an approach to the Botswana Government about the kidnapping of 400 children from South-West Rhodesia for indoctrination and military training against the wishes of their parents, since the reported statement of the Botswana Government about a voluntary march at gunpoint excites incredulity and ignores the parents? Is it not time that the British Government took a stand against the cynical barbarism of totalitarian States whenever it occurs and not selectively?

To call Sir Seretse Khama's State a totalitarian State is hardly an accurate description of the Botswana regime. We have had two totally contradictory accounts of this matter, one from Sir Seretse Khama's Government and the other from the Rhodesian Government. I have no intention of making an approach to anybody until we discover which of these is true. There have, of course, been innumerable incursions on the part of the Rhodesians into Botswana territory in recent months. These border incidents will occur, whether we like it or not, in consequence of Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals.

Can the Foreign Secretary say, following his talk with Ambassador Young, whether the policies of the British Government and the American Administration towards Rhodesia are still closely aligned? Is it not time that we in this House accepted that the way for the West to combat the spread of Communism in Africa is not for us to identify ourselves with those who seek to perpetuate white minority rule in that part of Africa?

I agree on the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, British Government policy, while it may not be accepted by the Opposition, is fully in line with the policy of the American Administration and, as Monday's statement demonstrated, with that of the other eight members of the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what subjects he hopes to discuss with Vice-President Mondale when he visits Europe.

Vice-President Mondale had a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 27th January, which I attended. Discussion covered matters of mutual concern to the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular the world economic situation and the possibility of a summit meeting of the main industrialised countries. Views were also changed on Rhodesia, Cyprus, the Middle East, relations with the developing countries and some bilateral questions.

Did the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister discuss with Mr. Mondale the importance to Britain and France of the Concorde project, and the importance of the decision to be reached in New York on 10th February to both countries? If he did not, will he please tell the American Administration of the British Government's determination to see that Mr. Colman's ruling on Concorde for a trial period is adhered to and is not overcome in New York by "phoney" political opposition?

We raised the question of Concorde, and made plain the importance that we attach to it and to the ruling that is due on 10th February. I understand that the French Government took the same view when Vice-President Mondale visited Paris and that the French raised the matter in a very positive manner.

Will my right hon. Friend say something more about the discussions that he and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with Mr. Mondale about the world economic situation? What measures were discussed to coordinate the activities of the industrialised countries to tackle the growing problem of unemployment in both the developed and the developing countries?

This subject naturally played a major part in our discussions. We underlined the view, which is held not merely by the British Government but by the OECD, that the critical factor in the world economic situation at the moment is the need for some acceleration of growth in the United States, Germany and Japan. No final decisions were taken or could have been taken at a meeting of this kind, but it was clear that the question that my hon. Friend has raised is central to the agenda for the discussions of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he goes to Washington in March, and also for the economic summit, which will probably be some time in May.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is a widespread feeling that his discussions with the Vice-President about Rhodesia came to the conclusion that what was important was not majority rule, which the so-called Patriotic Front of Rhodesia did not appear to represent, but that there should be an agreement to persuade or compel Mr. Smith to hand over power to Soviet-influenced and Soviet-dominated elements in Africa, inimical to British and other Western interests in Southern Africa?

I cannot believe that this was the widespread view of the discussions that we had about Rhodesia with Vice-President Mondale. So far as I know, there has been no Press speculation about the content of these discussions. As to the substance of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I have said again and again what is surely an obvious truth, that any spread of Soviet influence in Southern Africa is far more likely to be caused by Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals than by anything that the British Government are proposing.

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 Chile.

There has been no change in Her Majesty's Government's consistently defined and clearly stated position.

Will my hon. Friend accept from me, on behalf of many of my hon. Friends, our congratulations on the very honourable position that the Government have taken about Chile? However, will he further accept that many of us are deeply worried about the slowing down in the granting of visas for refugees and about indications of political bias on the part of the chief adjudicator and, for instance, the Scottish adjudicator in regard to the granting of visas to these refugees? Will he consult the Home Secretary about what can be done in order to speed up this process and to sack the adjudicators who are so violently politically biased?

I do not think that I can comment on the allegations by my hon. Friend about the adjudicators. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. If there is an obvious way of speeding up the process of granting visas, after close consultation with the Home Office we shall do our best to achieve that objective.

How does the state of our diplomatic relations with Chile compare with the state of our diplomatic relations with Cambodia?

We have applied or sought to have a non-rsident ambassador in Kampuchea. We have diplomtic relations with Chile but no ambassador there.

I thank my hon. Friend for the strong letter of disapproval—I think we must interpret it as such—that he wrote to the Scottish Football Association in respect of the horrifying proposed match in the Santiago Stadium—the scene of murder, death and torture.

My hon. Friend's latter point does not come within the purview of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; it is a matter that is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Has the hon. Gentleman undertaken a comparative study of the extent of the observance of human rights and issues of visas in Chile and certain countries behind the Iron Curtain, including Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union? If not, will he do so?

I do not know that one can carry out the sort of study that the hon. Gentleman suggests. All I know is that at least on the Government Benches there is an even-handed policy towards human rights. Today, for example, we have had strong condemnation from my hon. Friends about the actions of Czechoslovakia, but we have heard nothing from Opposition Members. We have not had a word of criticism from them about human rights in Chile.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will pay a visit to Ocean Island.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that, since the judge in the recent court case concerning Ocean Island and the Banaban people said that it was up to the British Government to put right a very great wrong that had taken place in relation to Ocean Island, there has been growing concern in the House and in the country about the responsibility of the British Government? Will he please say what is likely to happen?

We are aware of the remarks made by the judge in the case to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are also conscious of the expressions of sympathy that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere for the Banabans. Our main concern is to reach a settlement that is fair to all those involved, including the Banabans and the Gilbertese. It is for that reason, as was announced a few days ago, that we have sent to the area Mr. Richard Posnett, once the Governor of Belize, to have discussions with all parties and to make recommendations for a solution.

Has not the case for the Banabans been very much overstated? Is not this a further attempt to get more cash that they do not wish to share with the rest of the territory? Did they not vote overwhelmingly to stay at Rabi? Is it not now our task, together with Australia and New Zealand, to work out a sensible policy and to make further attempts to settle them properly on Rabi, which they have not yet tried themselves?

You go there and see.

I have.

As for the desire of the Banabans themselves to live on Rabi, it is the case that they voted by an overwhelming majority to go to Rabi in the first place to stay there. It is not contested that the majority of them want to stay there. That does not remove the problem of who should get the benefit of the revenues from phosphates on Ocean Island. It is a difficult problem. Should it go entirely to the 2,000 or 3,000 people who once lived on Ocean Island, or whose ancestors did, or should the benefits be spread among a large number of the people in the territory as a whole with which Ocean Island has been associated for a long time?

Does not this whole horrifying story give meaning to the phrase "colonial exploitation"? Has not this story offended many decent people of all political persuasions throughout the country as well as those who use the phrase frequently? Does it need an ex-colonial governor to go there now after the whole matter has been thrashed out in court for several years and all the facts are known to everyone who is interested in the matter? Is it not about time that the British Government did somethting to recompense these people who have been exploited over many years?

Obviously we must be concerned with what happened at different times in the past, but the most important factors now are the views of those most intimately concerned, which include the Banabans themselves, both those on Rabi and those on Ocean Island, and the Governments of the Gilbert Islands, Fiji, Australia and New Zealand. It is important that we should know exactly what their views are, and it is for that reason that Mr. Richard Posnett has been sent out for discussions.

As the Secretary of State is not to go to Ocean Island, where he would have seen for himself the Banaban homeland ravaged almost entirely for the benefit of Britain, Australia and New Zealand, will the hon. Gentleman make the position clearer in respect of two matters? First, what answer has been given to the Fijian Government's helpful request that if Britain will detach Ocean Island from the Gilberts Fiji will accept responsibility for it? Secondly, if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to make that concession, what parallel arrangements are being made to ensure that the Gilbert Islands, when they move into independence, have a viable economy and adequate aid to face a confident future?

It is true that I have not yet had the opportunity of going to Ocean Island. However, the hon. Gentleman will know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State went out to Ocean Island less than a year ago and saw the position on the spot for himself. It is true that the Fijian Government have made a suggestion of the sort that the hon. Gentleman described. I can say that no constitutional arrangement is excluded. Anything, including that, will be discussed and considered. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. If we were finally to decide in favour of a solution of that sort, it would make it necessary to consider what would be owed to the Gilbert Islanders, who had expected to continue to benefit from association with Ocean Island. We would make whatever arrangements we felt necessary in that situation.

Has there ever been an instance of a High Court judge castigating successive Governments in the way that Sir Reginald Megarry has done? Does not the question of the provision of an ex gratia payment stand by itself? Is it not a matter of compelling moral responsibility if this country's good name is to be preserved? Bearing in mind that these people, in contrast with those in various other parts of the world who give expression to their grievances by hijacking and terrorism, have acted in a peaceful and forbearing way—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a speech.

I do not think it is the case that the judge made continual accusations and charges in respect of the behaviour of successive British Governments. He made one highly-publicised remark about what he felt was the responsibility of the British Government. In general—he did this several times in his judgment—he went out of his way to express appreciation of the concern and care that British officials had shown for the welfare of the country over many years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be a general welcome in the House for the assurance he has given us this afternoon that, in seeking a fair solution to the Banabans' claims, the well-being and interests of the 55,000 Gilbertese will be fully safeguarded?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. The population of the Gilbert Iislands is about 55,000 and there are between 2,000 and 3,000 Banabans. We have to consider whether, now that Ocean Island is in receipt of large revenues from the phosphates, it is right and fair that the benefit should go exclusively to 2,000 or 3,000 people or should be shared more widely among a larger number of people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government are open to the accusation of having set up the interests of the Banabans as against those of the Gilbertese in the past and that they are now reaping the whirlwind? Will he assure the House that Mr. Posnett will look at other matters in the Pacific dependencies where things may have to be readjusted? Is he aware that there are hon. Members here who will see that right is done throughout the whole of the Pacific before Britain withdraws her colonial responsibilities from that area?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, clearly Mr. Posnett will not go throughout all British possessions in the Pacific and make recommendations for the whole area. He is concerned with a specific problem, which is not merely financial. It is a financial and constitutional problem. The two things are closely interrelated. Mr. Posnett will visit all those who have a legitimate interest in the subject and will make recommendations on both points. The Government will have to make a decision on the basis of his recommendations.

On the constitutional position of Ocean Island, may we have an assurance that the Government will continue to support the Gilbert Islands Government so that the Gilberts can achieve independence intact, not dismembered?

I should not like to prejudice the result of inquiries which are just about to be made. The point made by the hon. Gentleman concerns a crucial element in the situation. It would be wrong for me to give the kind of assurance for which he has asked, because it would make nonsense of the visit that we are authorising. We shall take careful account of the legitimate interests of the Gilbert Islanders in any final solution of this matter.

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

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

I expect to meet my EEC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8th February.

Is it not regrettable that, at their meeting on Monday, the Foreign Ministers simply referred to the political directors further study of the question of human rights in Eastern Europe? As the main facts are well known and as every visitor who comes out from behind the Iron Curtain tells us that the best way we can help is to speak up in defence of human rights, would it not be desirable that the Community as a body should put out a firm and clear statement about its position on that subject?

Yes, it would be desirable. That is why we have asked that the matter be looked at by the political directors. In my view, there is an uncertain response from the West as a whole to these events. We ought to be able to speak with more of a single voice than at the moment. I refer not merely to this side of the Atlantic but to the other side as well. We have asked the political directors to report to us for the essential reason that the human rights movement in Eastern Europe, critically important as it is, is not uniform in terms of motivation. As has been made clear by the leaders of Charter '77, their motives, attitude and objectives are not the same, for example, as those of the Russian dissidents. We felt that, in order to help us to achieve the possibility of speaking with a single voice, we should have a report from the political directors. There is no difference between us on what the hon. Gentleman said about the objective.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed that when he has had discussions with EEC leaders they have made fine federal European statements about all things under the sun but that in practice they have tended to put national interests first, as with sanctions on Rhodesia, the purchase of oil, and the West Germans employing Turks when it suits them and then kicking them out when they have finished with them and lending us money to purchase their goods? What is the point of having direct elections with a motley crew like that?

The point is that, if we have direct elections, my hon. Friend might be elected and might bring the motley crew under control.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said in his last answer, will he give a definite assurance that Her Majesty's Government intend to proceed with the necessary legislation in order that we may have direct elections at the time they promised?

Yes. That assurance has recently been given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I repeat it today.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he will hold with Foreign Ministers of other European Community countries to prepare for the Belgrade meeting to assess the consequences of the Helsinki Agreement.

Foreign Ministers of the Nine met in the political co-operation framework on 31st January and preparations for the Belgrade review meetings of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe were fully discussed. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine reaffirmed their intention to maintain the closest co-operation in preparing positions for Belgrade and noted the need for intensifying consultations in the months immediately ahead.

In thanking the Foreign Secretary for his important answer to the previous Question and the Minister of State for what he has just said, and bearing in mind that the free movement of people and the exchange of ideas is central to the British tradition and that of our partners in the Community, may I ask the Government to seek to discuss the possibility not only of speaking at Belgrade with a united voice but of imposing effective sanctions in particular cases when the British public are troubled by details of the persecution of minority racial groups and dissident voices under Communist régimes?

We take this issue very seriously. That is why we are trying to co-ordinate an approach within the Nine. We held discussions in the Council of Europe last week to try to ensure that, as far as possible, 19 voices speak with a common purpose on these issues.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the 19 voices will back up and emphasise the condemnation by President Carter of the persecution of Andrei Sakharov, his view representing that of all of us?

As my right hon. Friend made clear, this issue requires considerable discussion to get a unified voice. We need to take account of all the differing views which are coming from some of the people who are currently representing the views of the human rights movements in Eastern European countries.

Are the Government capable of differentiating between totalitarian Governments who seek to deny human rights only to their own people and the Government of the Soviet Union, who have as their avowed aim the denying of those rights to their own people and the people of the whole world?

Yes, we are quite capable of differentiating.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to seek a reform of the procedures of the European Council.

The European Council has no formal procedures. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will no doubt consider a little nearer the time how he will wish to conduct the first European Council meeting under his chairmanship which will be held in Rome on 25th and 26th March.

To what extent will it be possible to ensure that any changes which take place during the next five months will outlive our own tenure of the Presidency? In view of the distinct possibility of enlargement of the EEC, is there not an argument for an amendment to the Treaty to simplify the procedures and eliminate a lot of the detail which is still going to the Council of Ministers?

I certainly agree that much too much detail has been going through to the Council of Ministers as opposed to the European Council. One of my objectives has been to cut down the detail and to confine the agenda to important matters.

What progress has been made in instituting a fundamental review of the rules of the Council secretariat and of the Commission?

It is early days to say that great progress has been made. The Presidents of both the Council and the Commission are dissatisfied with the nature of the preparation that goes on for meetings of different kinds inside the Community. It will take a little time to conduct a fundamental review.

Will the Foreign Secretary follow up the encouraging reply that he gave on direct elections and assure us that by the time the Prime Minister goes to the European Council meeting in Rome and takes the chair he will be able to show our colleagues in Europe a Bill which has been introduced into this House and so dispel the fears that it might be Britain alone that disrupts this move towards European parliamentary democracy?

I am sure that those fears can be allayed. The timing is for my right hon. Friend the Lord President, and it partly depends upon the timing of the Bill which we were discussing until 6 o'clock this morning.

Once again, may I draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the decision of the Labour Party Conference on direct elections? Is he aware that the Labour Party Conference was totally opposed to the concept of direct elections? Will he bear that in mind? Does he not agree that there should be no rushing forward with a policy that has no real response from the Labour movement in this country?

My hon. Friend knows that I am extremely well known for my total obeisance to Labour Party Conference decisions, and I noted that particular decision. But my hon. Friend is not quite right to say that the decision was accepted by an overwhelming majority. It was much closer than expected.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the current negotiations on revising the common fisheries policy to be completed.

Since we intend to negotiate a substantial revision of the common fisheries policy and there is at present a clear division of opinion between member States, it is impossible to predict.

Does the Minister realise that, although we all appreciate the efforts that he and his colleagues are making, his answer is not good enough for the fishing industry? Does he not agree that something could be done to remove the blockage by some of the EEC countries such as Denmark by allocating funds from the EEC Social Fund to help them over the necessary consequences of discontinuing the practice of destroying the herring stocks?

The hon. Member has raised a serious problem concerning the herring catch. We have made it clear that conservation measures for herring are urgently necessary and we have informed the Commission clearly of our proposals. We have said that if there is no agreement on some of the essential conservation measures we will have to take them unilaterally.

Since the review of the common fisheries policy has dragged on too long, will my right hon. Friend now set a time limit by which an agreement must be reached and state clearly that we will take action by ourselves if an agreement is not reached by that date?

We must face the fact that we are bound by the provisions of the Treaty of Accession. Of course, we can end negotiations at any time. One can act illegally and end up in the courts, but one can equally well give way in the negotiations and end up with an unsatisfactory settlement. We intend to do neither. We believe that it is possible so to revise the policy that it meets the main objectives of our fisheries industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list, in order of priority, the objectives which he hopes to achieve during his tenure of the Presidency of the EEC Council.

I made a speech to the European Parliament in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which I outlined the objectives of Her Majesty's Government during our Presidency of the Council of Ministers. Copies were placed in the Vote Office on 12th January.

May I remind the Foreign Secretary that it would be humiliating if he were to leave the chair of the Council of Ministers without having ensured that a draft Bill for the introduction of direct elections is well on its way to completion in this House? Does he not agree that Britain, of all countries, should be the one to set the lead in this matter?

I take note of the hon. Gentleman's point.

In view of my right hon. Friend's previous assurance on direct elections, will he go further and say that when the draft Bill is brought forward the Government will put it through the House with the same determination with which they are pursuing the devolution Bill?

I hope that it will go a little faster than that.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the greatest threat to the survival of Western Europe comes from the growing attack on its sources of raw materials resulting from the expansion of Soviet imperialism? Does he agree that the first priority should be to seek to mobilise the opinion of European Governments and, through them, the Governments of the United States and Japan in order to safeguard Western civilization and industrial pluralist democracies from this danger?

I certainly wish to save Western civilisation and pluralist democracy. That seems an admirable aim. I do not think that the main threat to them comes from that direction, but as an aim and objective it is one that will be shared by the whole House.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the recent statement by the European Movement that direct elections are intended as a first step towards a federal State?

No, Sir.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it is just possible that not every hon. Member has read from end to end the speech to which he referred earlier? Will he take the opportunity of reaffirming his commitment to expand the scope of a co-ordinated foreign policy in the Community as one of its most important objectives.

I readily confirm that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's present policy towards a federal State in Europe.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech that my right hon. Friend made in Luxembourg on 12th January, in which he said

"the debate between federalists and confederalists is now irrelevant and unreal".

In view of that answer, will my right hon. Friend now reply to a question which I asked my right hon, Friend last week but to which I did not receive a complete answer? It referred to the first speech by Mr. Roy Jenkins as President of the EEC Commission, when he said:

"Our aims are economic but our end is political".

The President of the Commission speaks in his rôle as President, It is not a matter for the Government.

Whatever might be the Government's policy towards a federal State in Europe, can the Foreign Secretary confirm to the House that it is his Department's intention to publish the list of foreign countries referred to in Question No. 12 today?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the current arrangements for public notification of documents published by the various parts and agencies of the EEC.

No, and in an effort to improve the situation the Government have decided to publish lists of EEC documents in the London Gazette. This arrangement will be introduced shortly.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for the arrangements he is making, may I ask him to comment on the documents emanating from the Council of Ministers? Since it is a legislative body, is it not possible for it to issue minutes of proceedings as we do in this House? If that is not done, does it not put into question the democratic nature of the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to ensure that decisions are published and made public?

All legislation that is agreed by the Council of Ministers is published. But the Council of Ministers is not simply a legislative Chamber. In some senses it is also a Cabinet. Even in these days of open government we do not release Cabinet minutes for general circulation—and I am in favour of our not doing so.

Since the Cabinet does not legislate and since the Council of Ministers does, is not the whole problem that the Council of Ministers operates behind a curtain of silence and is closed to the Press and the public even when it is carrying out its legislative functions? Is it not the case that it does not allow Members of the European Parliament to attend even when the subject is relevant to a particular committee? Is it not time that this curtain of silence was pulled down?

This is a difficult issue. If it were possible to make a definite separation between the legislative function and the Cabinet decision-making function it would be easy to do, but it is difficult to make that separation.

Does the Minister agree that the first thing that must be done in respect of the European institutions is to define and limit the rôle and functions of the European Assembly? Does he agree that it is clear, for instance, from the speech of Mr. Roy Jenkins in Luxembourg on 11th January that no one has an agreed or clear idea of what the European Assembly should do, and, indeed, that until there is such a redefinition of the functions and the rôle of that Assembly there should be no direct elections to it?

The speech of the President of the Commission is a matter for him. There are many different views about the rôle and functions of the European Parliament, or Assembly. However, one thing is quite clear. That is that the mere fact of introducing direct elections carries with it no commitment to any change in its existing powers.

What does my right hon. Friend think will be the cost to this country of direct elections? Will he take it from me, in view of the cuts that have recently been made in education and social services, that the money would be much better spent in my constituency of Jarrow?

And in Battersea, South.

I am afraid that I am not able to give my right hon. Friend an estimate of the cost of European elections. One of the matters that the House will wish to discuss is the whole question of financing and what financial arrangements may need to be made concerning European elections. However, I shall give as much information as I can to the House.

Follow. the reply given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) a moment ago, may I ask whether the Government will arrange for a document to be issued explaining where the President thinks that the greatest threat to Europe comes from, because that surely is the basis on which defence in Europe must primarily depend?

Did the hon. and gallant Gentleman say "Where does the President feel that the greatest threat is?" The Government are always making clear their views on the threats to both the security of this country and the NATO Alliance, and the traditional way of dealing with that matter is in the annual Defence White Paper.