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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to achieve a peaceful settlement in the Middle East; and if he will make a statement.

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

It is too early to make a statement. Intensive efforts are being made to establish an agreed basis for a peaceful settlement and now that the Israeli election is over I would expect a further round of discussions. In particular, I welcome the high priority that the new United States Administration are giving to this issue.

In view of the very urgent need for progress towards the Geneva Conference, will the right hon. Gentleman seek a fresh Community initiative to this whole issue that is designed to persuade the Israelis to desist from constructing settlements in Arab-occupied territories, and equally to persuade the Palestinians at the very least to recognise Israel's right to exist?

The details of a peace agreement are for negotiation, but we have made it clear that we regret anything, including the Israeli policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories, that might impede the beginning of negotiations. We hope that it will be possible to reconvene the Geneva Conference in the autumn, as the United States Government have proposed.

Would it not now be a commendable gesture for Her Majesty's Government to invite Mr. Yasser Arafat to London for negotiations so that we might be able to find out at first hand what are the legitimate objectives of the Palestinians? After all, this gentleman has far more credibility than the present leader of Israel.

I find it difficult to agree to meet Mr. Arafat until the PLO has recognised the State of Israel, or has gone rather further than it has done to recognise—[Interruption.] I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary for moves to be made on both sides. I do not deny in any way that one must be ready to speak to many differing people. However, there is no hiding the fact that a greater acceptance of the right of Israel to exist would make matters easier. That is a fact of life that all of us recognise. I also recognise that that poses problems for the PLO, but there is no doubt that it is one of the barriers to having the sort of discussions that my hon. Friend has suggested.

The Secretary of State did not exactly answer the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce)—namely, what initiative is the Community going to take? Does it speak with one voice on this issue?

The hon. Gentleman's zealous regard for a Community statement is touching. I shall take it into full account. The fact is that the Community has spoken with one voice on this issue on many occasions in the past. It is a matter of concern and it is discussed among the Foreign Ministers of the Nine at every political co-operation meeting.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation has recently become much more dangerous in the Middle East and that time is running out? Does he recognise that time is not on our side, and that much more urgency should be shown by the Western world in moving towards a solution of this problem?

I agree. I think that the situation is urgent. It has been given a very high priority by the United States Government and by many other Governments. I have visited some of the major countries involved and I hope to visit others in the next few months. We should not automatically assume that the result of the Israeli election will necessarily mean a setback to peace negotiations, although it is clearly an unexpected result in some people's minds. I hope that the new Government, once they have been fully formed, will show a readiness to negotiate and a flexibility rather in advance of what they have said hitherto on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is aware that President Carter is willing to co-operate in the closure of United States nuclear bases in the United Kingdom; and what is holding up this policy.

I am not aware that President Carter has expressed himself in the sense suggested by my hon. Friend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the policy advocated here is in accordance with the Labour Party's programme and, furthermore, in accordance with the general philosophy expounded by President Carter? If the Foreign Secretary points out to President Carter that it is part of the Labour Party's election programme and in accordance with the President's policy, is he aware that the President's response is likely to be to agree to a negotiated agreement? Will my hon. Friend press this matter?

We welcome President Carter's initiative. As our manifesto stated, starting from the basis of multilateral disarmament we shall seek the removal of the United States bases. It is our intention to establish conditions in which we can all have permanent confidence in our security. We are pursuing several practical measures on arms control and disarmament, but we are still some way from establishing such conditions.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all those of us who are members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament find it strange that the Government are taking so long to strike up a new initiative in this area? If talks are initiated with President Carter, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this is already party policy for the Scottish National Party, and that we intend to carry out this commitment much more quickly than does the Labour Party?

It is not for me to comment on the policy of the Scottish National Party. I assure the hon. Lady that we have positively welcomed the President's initiative and that we are determined, together with our other allies, to do everything possible to support what he seeks.

Is it not correct that the President has concurred with the recent surprising Soviet proposal that Britain should join the super-Powers in talks to end all nuclear test explosions? Will we join those talks, and in any case should not Britain therefore cancel its tests in Nevada?

Of course, if we can achieve international agreement on the cessation of nuclear tests, so long as we can be sure that peaceful tests are not disguised for military purposes, we shall do everything possible to co-operate. We are determined to do that.

Will the Minister, however, confirm clearly that his understanding is as mine—that is, that President Carter has in no way suggested that there should be a unilateral state of disarmament of any kind, in the face of the existing state of Soviet armament?

What the President is clearly committed to and what we are committed to support to the hilt is a genuine and full commitment to effective and genuine multilateral disarmament. However, as I have said before, succeeding generations will not thank us for cosmetics in this sphere.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek a meeting with Mr. Vance to discuss the implementation by the United States of America Government of the treaty signed by Her Majesty's Government and the Federal Government allowing Concorde to land in New York.

As I told the hon. Member on 4th May, the United States Government are well aware of our views. We and the French are urgently and carefully considering yesterday's decision by the United States Court of Appeals, but until these considerations are complete and the airlines have been consulted it is too soon to say what steps will be taken.

But is it not clear that, unless and until Mr. Carter accepts his presidential responsibility for implementing federal treaty obligations, the courts will continue to uphold the discriminatory ban by the Port of New York Authority? What are the Government doing to remove the feeling in many quarters that, in the case of Concorde, the signature of the United States Government on a treaty is rather less valuable than the signature of the Soviet Government on the Helsinki agreement?

I am sure that with his specialised knowledge the hon. Gentleman will recognise that this is a complicated issue, which raises fundamental points about the principles of the rule of law, to which I know he is deeply committed. I can assure him that the Prime Minister has spoken to President Carter himself several times, and we have raised the matter with Mr. Vance. The Secretary of State for Trade also spoke to Mr. Brock Adams expressing concern when he was in the United States recently.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the continued frustration currently being experienced by British Airways and Air France in regard to Concorde is doing nothing but build up a heavy anti-American groundswell of public opinion in this country? Will he therefore use his best ministerial endeavours to put pressure on President Carter to drop his Nelson-like approach and to come down firmly on the side of a co-operative gesture, which could only help Anglo-American relations?

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. It would be wrong to underestimate the feeling in this country about the issue. So far as I am aware, that is well recognised in the United States, and, as I have said, senior British Ministers have been at pains to make sure that the President and the United States Secretary of State are well aware of how we see the issue on this side of the Atlantic.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to say what further action Her Majesty's Government propose to take to initiate international action to persuade the Cambodian Government to change their present policy of mass murder.

I have at present nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member on 4th May.

Does the Minister agree that to suggest deferring raising this matter until the next meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February 1978 is to abrogate the responsibility of this Government? Is it not deplorable that we should be prepared to allow a Government like the Cambodian Government to continue their policy of genocide, resulting in the loss of many hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, without apparently being willing to take any action to rouse public opinion against that Government?

First of all, we have expressed our own views about this matter in no uncertain terms. Second, it is not the case that it is a special responsibility of this Government to raise this question with the United Nations. However, as I have told the hon. Gentleman before, we should like to raise the question in the appropriate body of the United Nations. The appropriate body is the UN Commission on Human Rights, which unfortunately does not meet until February of next year. None the less, we are considering whether there is any other way in which we might raise it.

In view of the special connection of France with that part of South-East Asia in the past, has my hon. Friend had any consultations with the French about a joint initiative?

We are considering whether there is any action that we could take in conjunction with other Governments, and the French Government might certainly be one. There is one possibility. The UN Commission on Human Rights has a Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, and it is just possible that we may find a way of raising it there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the CPRS Report on the Diplomatic Service.

I hope to have a printed copy of the Report shortly. After discussions with my colleagues I hope to be able to publish the Report to allow for public discussion.

But what action will the right hon. Gentleman take to restore the morale of the Diplomatic Service, which has been affected by the strange attitude of some members of the CPRS team as they have gone round our missions abroad? Is he aware that we on the Opposition Benches trust that he will support the Diplomatic Service against those who seek to undermine this important British interest through either envy or malice?

This country has been extremely well served by its Diplomatic Service over many generations and we owe it to the service to ensure that any examination of what are only recommendations to the Government should be carried out seriously. That is what its members want. When I go around talking to diplomats in many parts of the world I find that they are not reluctant to see the service examined. They realise that it must change with changing circumstances, but they want an unprejudiced look at their service, and a recognition that they have played an important rôle in the past and will continue to do so in future.

But is it not a fact that the Diplomatic Service is overmanned and overprivileged? Can my right hon. Friend explain why it is necessary, for example, to keep the same level of representation at European capitals, when, so far as one can discover, planeloads of Ministers and civil servants make constant trips to and from European capitals—Brussels in particular?

I do not want to prejudge the discussions that will take place on the CPRS Report, but on the question whether the service is overmanned I must tell the House frankly that I think that there are some places in the world where one needs to consider whether there could not be some judicious slimming of the service.

Washington, for example.

I do not object at all to what my hon. Friend says. However, there are also places where the Diplomatic Service is understaffed and is doing a difficult job in adverse circumstances. In such places I should like to increase the representation to support our trade efforts.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that remarks like that made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) damage the morale of the Diplomatic Service? Does he agree that Britain still has an important rôle to play in the Commonwealth, in Europe and in the world, and that to achieve that effectively we must be effectively represented abroad by those who feel confident in the service which they serve?

Yes, I agree with that. We need to be effectively represented throughout the world. I am not a believer in sectoral withdrawal in any aspect of our life. I think that we need to draw the lesson that, in our obsession, naturally, with the arguments about our entry into Europe, we may have got too orientated towards Europe. At the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, I was struck by the number of people who asked us to remember that we still had major trading interests all over the world. We need to look after those trading interests and ensure that our representation still covers all aspects of our trading and diplomatic activity world-wide.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Irish Foreign Minister.

My right hon. Friend hopes to do so at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st June.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the Irish Foreign Minister, will he assure him of his full support for the Irish Government's stand on a 50-mile conservation limit round the Irish coast? Will he take a leaf out of Ireland's very courageous stand on the matter and do the same himself?

The Irish Government have not declared a 50-mile limit. What they have done is to ban certain large vessels, including their own, for conservation reasons. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are determined to fight vigorously for the interests of the British fishing industry in all negotiations with the Community.

On behalf of some of the members of my party, may I support the hon. Gentleman in what he said about a 50-mile limit?

I repeat that we shall fight with all the vigour necessary to protect the interests of the British fishing industry.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Israel.

I hope to visit Israel as soon as it is convenient.

In the meantime, and while recognising that ultimately concessions will no doubt have to come from both sides if peace in the Middle East is to be maintained, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to resist undue pressure on the new Israeli Administration in regard to the evacuation of territory, and to use the time between now and his expected visit to press the Palestinian interests to recognise the existence of the State of Israel?

I have already indicated that I think that a movement in this area of recognition would certainly help, although I realise the complexity of the problem. The Government's attitude to settlements in the occupied territory has been made absolutely clear. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the new Government. They are a new Government, democratically elected, and they must be given the benefit of any doubt or anxieties that people may have about the future position over a negotiated peace settlement. I hope that when they look at the issues they will enter into the negotiations for a settlement with a readiness to reach an agreement that will bring stability to the area. It is certainly in that spirit that I approach the new Government.

Remembering that the British Government officially condemned the Arab boycott against Israel, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to follow the example of the United States, Canada and the Netherlands by instructing officials of his own Department to stop authenticating signatures of discriminatory certificates of origin, as this is the one way in which the British Government actively enable the boycott against Israel to be continued?

I cannot accept that the certification of documents by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in any way implies that we condone or endorse the boycott. We do not. I have made the position clear on that. All that is certified is the signature of the public official.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that since the Israeli election Mr. Begin has publicly stated that he will go to Washington on the basis of Resolutions 242 and 338? Is not this a rather encouraging sign?

Yes, Sir. I think that it reflects the fact that the Israeli Government are ready to negotiate. I hope that that is the position. It is very important that we do not judge a Government by statements during the election period. I think that most of us would recognise that the best way of judging Governments is by what they actually do in office.

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

I shall visit the United Nations General Assembly in New York at the end of September and may well visit Washington then.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the autumn thousands of people from Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom will be marching in protest against the presence of American nuclear bases in the Holy Loch and elsewhere in the United Kingdom? Will he pay more attention to the Labour Party manifesto commitment in this respect, and will he pass on appropriate information to the American President, Jimmy Carter, and to our whizz-kid ambassador?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the whole issue of disarmament is one in which I have taken a great deal of interest when sitting on both sides of the House, and I shall continue to do so. The question is one of achieving genuine measures of disarmament. We can look at the whole question of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We can encourage greater progress in the SALT negotiations. We can contribute to the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations, which are continuing. In all three areas we are extremely active at present.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the American Administration that he welcomes President Carter's confirmation that he proposes to continue his campaign on the subject of human rights? Will he assure the House that, in co-operation with the United States Government and our other partners, we shall do our best to ensure that at Belgrade there is a serious and thorough examination of the record of the parties to the Helsinki agreement on all aspects of the agreement, including human rights?

My position on human rights is well known. I support the stand of the United States Administration. I recognise that it is a very important aspect, but only one of many aspects that will be discussed in Belgrade. We recently had a debate on this matter in the House, when I think that there was a broad measure of agreement that we need to see all parts of the Helsinki Final Act implemented. We shall approach Belgrade in a spirit of trying to ensure that there is full implementation. It will take time, but we are determined to achieve it. The fact that there is a human dimension to détente is one that I fully support.

When my right hon. Friend sees President Carter will he encourage him to think of the human rights of Arabs in Israeli-occupied territory as being equally as important as the human rights of Jews in the Soviet Union?

I know from conversations with President Carter that he is concerned about human rights everywhere in the world and judges the matter on its merits. As his actions have shown, he by no means sees the issue of human rights as being confined to the Soviet and Communist countries. He will look at the matter in the Middle East, the Far East and even in his own country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list his official engagements for 15th June.

This morning I attended a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. I had meetings with the Prime Ministers of Malaysia and Fiji, and with Mr. Joshua Nkomo. I expect to attend a further meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government this afternoon and the Prime Minister's reception this evening.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Commonwealth Heads of Government later today, will he express to them this House's appreciation of their unanimous and forthright condemnation of the Amin régime in Uganda? Will he accept the appreciation of the House for the part that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and he took in encouraging the Heads of Government to reach that decision? Does he not feel that now is the appropriate time for us to cease trading with Uganda, both in respect of the Stansted whisky run and all other trade with this thoroughly racist and atrocious régime?

The world can be in no doubt about our view of President Amin's régime. It is a source of great satisfaction to us all that many Commonwealth leaders have taken such a firm stand on this issue. I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend accepts that the Government's decision to do everything possible to make sure that the Commonwealth came together in London and was able to discuss this has been justified. However, we have no quarrel with the people of Uganda, and it would be a very serious step to attempt to embark on a policy of trade sanctions. [Interruption.] I can assure hon. Members that the situation in Uganda is such that it is worth considering measures, even if we may find them of a very serious nature. I recognise the concern of the House on the question of the Stansted flights, and I am examining the matter.

In view of the recognition of the new régime in the Seychelles, do the British Government now have a high commissioner in the Seychelles? Has anybody from the Seychelles played a part in the Commonwealth Conference, other than Mr. Mancham, who is deposed?

We have had a High Commission in the Seychelles and have had one throughout this period. No one from the Seychelles has taken part in the Heads of Government meeting. It would have been open to the new President to nominate somebody. When the matter was discussed in the opening stages of the conference, when the issue was not clear and President Mancham asked to speak to the conference, it was decided that the matter was best dealt with by discussions outside the conference. The Seychelles has not been formally represented, although the position has been kept for it and its name-plate has been left open.

Will my right hon. Friend spare a little time today to take some effective measures against the sanction-busting by the major oil companies in supplying oil to the illegal régime in Rhodesia, especially in regard to British Petroleum and Shell and British companies which are supplying oil through their intermediaries and subsidiaries in Southern Africa?

As my hon. Friend knows, I established an inquiry, under the powers and provisions provided for this purpose, to look into the allegations that have been made and to see whether there is any evidence on which the Director of Public Prosecutions would then have to decide whether the evidence was such that action could be taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any current plans to visit Turkey.

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

Is the Minister aware of some disenchantment in Turkey resulting from both the British withdrawal of troop commitment to the southern flank of NATO and lack of progress in the European context? What special steps have the Government in mind to take with the new Turkish Government to improve the situation?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that following the 1974 defence review the Government decided to concentrate the United Kingdom's defence effort in those areas where it could make the most significant contribution. This included the central region, the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel areas. We have, however, offered to carry out—I think this is what the hon. Gentleman has in mind—various compensatory measures of special value to the southern flank. These measures were detailed in the 1975 and 1976 defence White Papers.

Has the Minister seen a report in The Times today that exports from the northern part of Cyprus to Britain have played a large part in boosting the weak economy of that part of Cyprus? In the light of the recent court case, of which he is aware, concerning Kyrenia hotels, what fresh action will the British Government take over this matter, bearing in mind that we are a guarantor Power for a free and independent Cyprus?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that specific issue I shall answer it.

Returning to the Minister's original answer, will he offer the House his thoughts about meeting the new Prime Minister, Mr. Ecevit, and perhaps joining with Cyrus Vance of the United States in a series of propositions that should now be put to the new Administration in Turkey concerning the future of Cyprus?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government have high in their priorities effective relations with Turkey, whatever Turkish Government are in power, and we shall welcome Turkish Ministers at any time on visits to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will propose in the Security Council that a firm date be fixed by the Security Council for the termination of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia, and that Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter be invoked if South Africa does not comply.

The five Western members of the Security Council are engaged in an initiative to secure the earliest possible independence for Namibia. We believe considerable progress has been made. The timing of South Africa's withdrawal is naturally one of the topics under con-sideration.

It is useful that the South African Government have abandoned the Turnhalle proposals, and this is a step in the right direction, but does my hon. Friend accept that the patience of the African countries is not infinite? Does he further agree that unless the Western world shows a greater sense of urgency in this matter we shall have a situation as dangerous in Namibia as we have in Central Africa?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's comment on the patience of the African countries—and the patience of the international community as a whole is not infinite. We are moving with urgency and speed towards trying to find the best possible solution to the situation in Namibia and the earliest possible independence for the country.

To what extent are there suggestions from the South African Government that they are willing that any elections in Namibia may be supervised by the five Western Powers instead of by the United Nations?

There has been considerable agreement about the United Nations involvement in the elections for a constituent assembly. That is one of the most important steps forward, as it accords very much with the intrinsic criteria laid down in Security Council Resolution No. 385, on which the Western Powers have been making their demands to South Africa.

What is my hon. Friend's reaction to Dr. Kaunda's proposal that, rather than take the problems of Southern Africa separately, we should take an attitude that views the whole of the Southern African problems, in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia?

We accept that there is a great inter-relationship between all three problems, but there are special features of each of the problems, as anyone who studies the situation that we face in Rhodesia, or the efforts that we are now making in Namibia, will know. There is an inter-relationship, but every problem relating to Southern Africa has to be the subject of individual efforts.

Will the Minister bear in mind that South Africa subsidises this territory to the tune of 200 million rand a year, and that if South Africa removed its military forces the MPLA and the Cubans would walk in tomorrow?

The security of independent and free Namibia is a major issue that is concerning us. I am sure that the South African Government will bring to attention their support to Namibia, and that the international community can also do a lot to help Namibia when it achieves independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the Diplomatic Conference on Humanitarian Law currently meeting in Geneva.

The Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict has just completed its fourth and final session in Geneva with the adoption by consensus of two protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I welcome the agreement on the two protocols, but will my hon. Friend say what is the Government's attitude towards the resumption of the work of the ad hoc committee on conventional weapons which was unable to reach agreement before the close of the conference? Do the Government accept that the work of the committee in updating the Geneva and The Hague Conventions is long overdue?

The Government see great value in the work of the ad hoc committee on weaponry. As my hon. Friend knows —we have had discussions about the matter—the committee was discussing a number of very important topics. The question of the resumption of the meetings has not yet been decided.

Does the Minister agree that the conclusions of the conference were in some way unsatisfactory? When will another opportunity arise for them to be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government?

I do not accept that the results of the conference were altogether unsatisfactory. Her Majesty's Government have voted in favour of the two new protocols, and I understand the concern that has been expressed in some quarters about certain aspects of the protocols, but in many cases this concern is based on a misunderstanding of the exact meaning of these protocols.

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

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 whether 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.

Following my visit to African capitals in April, an Anglo-United States consultative group has held bilateral discussions with the parties in Southern Africa on possible elements in an independence constitution. Its report is being assessed by both Governments, and further consultations are likely soon. I have put in the Library a copy of a statement which I issued at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting describing the latest situation.

Is it not clear that until there is a greater willingness to agree on the part of the Rhodesian nationalist leaders, the chances of securing a peaceful solution to the constitutional problems of Rhodesia will be much reduced and the possibility that, even if there were a peaceful solution, there may thereafter be continued fighting will be much increased? Can the Foreign Secretary report any progress in securing agreement between the Rhodesian nationalist leaders?

I think that on the constitution it is not too difficult to see a way of getting agreement among the Rhodesian nationalist leaders. The problems there may well be with the Rhodesian Front, but of course the constitution is only one part of the problem. There is the problem of the transitional arrangements for elections, and there is the whole question also of law and order. In addition, we are all trying to ensure the economy of an independent Zimbabwe. All these elements come together in any negotiated settlement, and I am afraid that we shall have to try to reach some agreement with all the parties on all aspects if we are to reach a negotiated settlement.

Order. I must ask for brief questions and answers, since it is nearly time to turn to EEC matters, but I shall allow the House to finish this Question.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that any settlement will need the good will of both black and white in Rhodesia? How will this good will be helped by the Government's unworthy decision to ban the visit to this country of five black and five white crippled children?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter is dealt with under the legislation that was passed in this House, which prohibits all people coming here from the illegal régime. The hon. Gentleman knows the law of the land on this issue. I quite agree with him that the settlement will be achieved if we can reach an understanding between both black and white people who are to live under an independent constitution in Zimbabwe, but I have constantly stressed that there must be consent on both sides in this issue.

When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was Secretary of State for Defence, did he not authorise the pursuit of hostile forces across the Indonesian frontier at the time of the Malaysian confrontation? Why, then, does the right hon. Gentleman condemn the Rhodesian forces for using this means of defending British subjects whom the Government are powerless to help against brutal terrorism?

The hon. Gentleman knows that "hot pursuit" has an international legal meaning and that it is not compatible with an announcement by a general that he intends to stay 50 miles inside another country and to keep his forces there for a matter of some days. This outraged world opinion, quite rightly, and was something that threatened the whole territorial integrity of countries. In no sense is that hot pursuit, and the hon. Gentleman knows that well.

May I refer to the inquiry into alleged sanction-breaking by British oil companies? Does my right hon. Friend not think that there has been a long delay in this inquiry starting work? Will the inquiry or any parts of it be held in public?

Under the legislation it is not held in public. In some respects the inquiry is on a narrow point of law. It is not an overall inquiry into the whole question of oil sanctions and the breaking of them. This is one of the issues that have been discussed in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. Without prejudging the communiqué, I think that they will all address themselves to the opportunity that there may be for a wider look at the whole question of sanction-busting that has gone on for many years.

Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that with the almost daily reports of murder and escalation of atrocities in Rhodesia the rate and momentum of activity seems to us mani-festly inadequate to bring about the solution that is needed in that country. Will the Government now please take account of our repeated advice to them to consult the people of Rhodesia, in whose hands the decision should rest?

How?

The House asks "How?" That is one of the most difficult questions to answer. We have been consulting a very wide cross-section of opinion. I held consultations myself and they have been held recently in the Anglo-United States consultative group. That group will be going again into Rhodesia at the end of this month.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the United Nations Commission for Human Rights the International Commission of Jurists' reports on the situation in Uganda.

The reports of the International Commission of Jurists formed part of the evidence considered by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its recent session.

Does my hon. Friend realise that while we on the Government Benches condemn racialism in South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia, we also condemn events in Uganda? In view of the fact that Idi Amin is now setting himself up as a black Vorster and a black Hitler, what action are the Government proposing to take to end his régime?

As my hon. Friend knows, we take a vigorous view in the Human Rights Commission, and an equally vigorous view has been taken in the Commonwealth Conference among many African leaders themselves. Many Commonwealth leaders have stood up to be counted and have spoken bravely and firmly on the question of Amin's behaviour.

Is not the least we can do to cut off President Amin's supplies of whisky?

My right hon. Friend has already commented on that. We are looking at the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the recent Dominica constitutional conference, Her Majesty's Government will agree to the request for a referendum to be held before the island becomes an independent sovereign State.

The conference resulted in substantial agreement on an independence constitution for Dominica. The report will be published in due course.

May we be told where Her Majesty's Government stand on the specific issue of the referendum? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful to have an up-to-date assessment of public opinion in Dominica on the subject of independence prior to that event? Will he give the House an indication of the Government's feelings and reaction to the request that has been made to this effect by substantial sections of opinion on the island?

The position is that if Her Majesty's Government were to recommend to Parliament that Dominica should proceed to independence, as we are able to do under Section 10 (2) of the West Indies Act, we would need to be assured that the demand for independence was widely shared amongst the population of Dominica. The principle of independence was not really at issue in the independence conference over which I presided only two or three weeks ago. Both the Government party and the Opposition party want independence. The difference between them is only one of timing. We are to have further consultations about this matter. But it seems to us at present that there is very little doubt that the view of most people in Dominica is that they should enjoy independence.

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

The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, which will be the last one under the current United Kingdom Presidency, will be held in Luxembourg on 21st June.

When my right hon. Friend meets this motley crew, will he tell them that there is a massive majority among the British people who are against Britain's continuing in the Common Market, especially now that it has been revealed that the EEC is to lay its hands, in an emergency, on at least 10 per cent. of British oil? Will he point out to them that on the question of direct elections we find that Common Market democracy is at such a low ebb that in Britain Ministers are gagged on a supposedly free vote and in France they are not even to be allowed to vote?

When I speak to my colleagues in the Foreign Affairs Council—eight of them are elected Members of their own Parliaments and are far from being the motley crew that my hon. Friend describes—I shall be prepared to tell them that this country decided by an overwhelming vote in a referendum that Britain would remain a member of the European Community. I shall tell them that although we may be having disagreements on some issues, such as the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, we shall pursue our disagreements within the framework of the European Community, that we shall uphold our national interests as we have every right to do, but that we shall play a full part in the European Community for many years ahead.

When the right hon. Gentleman next attends a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council, will he initiate discussions on Scotland's future links with the Communities? In particular, will he tell his European colleagues that when Scotland regains her independence there can be no question of England's carrying on as the United Kingdom's successor State and that both partners in the present Union will have to renegotiate?

Like the majority of Members in this House, I believe in the United Kingdom and I shall continue to speak for it in Brussels or anywhere else.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that describing the CAP as a difference that can be ironed out is to make the understatement of the year? Is he aware that the CAP has been the cause—not exclusively, I agree—of the price increases that housewives in this country must pay, and that it is a situation such as that that has developed a strong anti-Market feeling throughout the country?

I do not deny that one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction with the EEC that is reflected in the opinion polls relates to the effect on food prices. However, I was grateful to my hon. Friend for putting the issue fairly. Not all the food price rises are the result of the CAP, although some of them are. This was always one of the liabilities that we accepted on entry, although we did not accept them as a permanent fact but accepted that we would try to reduce that liability. Most of us always felt that we would prefer a policy other than the CAP. We would have preferred the traditional system introduced in this country in 1947, but we accepted that we would work within the framework of the CAP to try to reform it.

How will the Foreign Secretary explain to the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC that it is consistent with the British Government's promise to use their best endeavours to secure direct elections for the European Assembly next year that Government Ministers should be allowed to vote against such elections?

It is my view that this will give us a better chance of getting the legislation through the House of Commons. [Interruption.] I mean that quite seriously. This is a constitutional issue for which I suspect there is a majority in this House. That has obviously yet to be proven. I believe that by allowing Members of Parliament to exercise their own independent, free judgment on this issue there is more chance of this legislation being carried through to the statute book. I have no objection to that. I argued within my own party for a free vote on this issue in 1972. I regret that there was not one then, and I am happy that there should be one now.

What plans has my right hon. Friend for pressing the EEC leaders to make vital changes in the CAP, which so far has been a disaster for this country, as President de Gaulle forecast it would be?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, who is also responsible for food, has vigorously pursued a policy of trying to get a reform of the CAP. He has done so with my full support. I think that has had some success, but my right hon. Friend would be the first to say that this success is only limited. What we need is a three-to-four-year structural plan for reform, particularly as it affects surplus commodities—milk products, wine, and a number of other things.

Will the Foreign Secretary elaborate on his extraordinary, obscure and tormenting answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)? How can he expect his own efforts, which I acknowledge, to be taken at all seriously inside the Community if Government Ministers are allowed to speak, and now, we understand, vote, against Government policy?

The hon. Gentleman talks as if a free vote on this issue is a constitutional innovation. I remind him that when his party was in Government it used a free vote on this issue. I do not know whether it was a genuine free vote or a disguised free vote. I was under the belief that it was a free vote. [Interruption.] If we are now told that it was a free vote for everyone other than Ministers, we can now understand the true status of that vote.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what auspices and to which body the new EEC Audit Court will be accountable.

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary explained the position in answer to my hon. Friend's Question on 19th May. The treaty of 22nd July 1975 provides that in the performance of their duties members of the court shall be completely independent and shall neither seek nor take instructions from any Government or from any other body.

Does my hon. Friend remember that on 19th July, in c. 1413 of Hansard, it became apparent that the existing Audit Board heavily qualified the Community's agricultural accounts and said it had not been able to look at the previous year's accounts and could give no opinion on the management of that fund? If the Audit Court is able to go into the accounts of intervention boards of other countries, as well as the central fund, will it be authorised to do that so that for the first time the agricultural accounts of the Community can be properly looked at and properly audited?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I have not got to hand the precise Hansard reference to which he refers, but I can assure him that the Audit Court will have considerably extended powers over those under which the Audit Board had to operate. This should help in achieving the kind of objective that he has in mind.

Will the Audit Board as reconstituted be as good as our Public Accounts Committee?

Having served for three years on the Public Accounts Committee, I think it would be difficult to find a more effective body anywhere in the world doing that kind of work than our own Public Accounts Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he considers to be his principal achievement during his tenure of his Presidency of the Council of Ministers of the EEC.

I hope to publish in July a White Paper on community affairs during the period of our Presidency of the Council. I would also refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech that I gave in Brussels on 24th May, a copy of which is in the Library.

With his outstanding record in this area, is not the right hon. Gentleman dismayed at the way in which so many of his ministerial colleagues, in pursuit of the shortest-term popularity, have thrown away long-term British interests in Europe, have damaged the prospects for European co-operation, and diminished this country's reputation?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I come to a completely different conclusion. What has dismayed me more than anything else is that when Ministers have legitimately stood up for national interests, and constantly argued their case as they have every right to do and ought to do in Brussels, this has been attacked by the Opposition Benches as in some way being an illegitimate use of ministerial powers in the Brussels dialogue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to recognise that were we not to argue our case and put it vigorously and firmly in Brussels we would be undermining the whole essence of the European Community.

Is it not time for the Government to face the reality of membership of the Common Market, which has been an unmitigated disaster? Is it not now legitimate for the Labour Party to go into the next General Election with a specific promise in its manifesto that a future Labour Government will negotiate our withdrawal?

It is perfectly possible for the Labour Government to enter into an election on any manifesto that is agreed between the Cabinet and the National Executive. That is the normal way of drafting a manifesto. It is open to argument whether that would be a recipe for electoral success. In my view it would be a recipe for electoral disaster. I believe—this is a legitimate view, although hon. Members may not agree with it—that the British people do not like a Government or a party to change course only two years after having put the issue to them in a referendum. It may well be that the British people and this Parliament, as they have every right constitutionally to do, may wish to reassess the question of British membership. That is open to them at any time, but I believe that to do so after such a short period would be little short of disastrous.

I return to the answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise the difference between defending the national interest within the normal framework of discussion which exists in the Council and developing a situation in which the reaction to the behaviour of this country and the Presidency of the Council is little short of disruptive to our future comportment in the Community?

I recognise that I am as close as anyone in this House to the feeling in the European capitals. I do not believe they hold that view of the British Presidency. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman on that. He would have done the standing of the British Presidency better had he not started to say this after only a couple of months of that Presidency.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is now his estimate of the date when he will introduce the Euro-passport.

It would be premature to make any forecast about the date of introduction of the British passport in the uniform European Community design.

Presumably that would be so, because we have been promised a debate about it. Can the Minister say what are the outstanding areas of difference between his partners in the Community over the provision of this Euro-passport? Why are the Government so obstinate in refusing this House the right to decide the issue? I recognise that we have been offered a debate on the subject, but we have not been offered the right to decide it. That has to be done by the Foreign Minister using his Royal Prerogative. May we not have an agreement from the Government that the House should decide the matter?

On the second part of the question, I recognise the strength of feeling that exists in the House but I have nothing to add to what I said on this at a previous Question Time. On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, to be candid, a great deal remains to be agreed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not be altogether discouraged by that. There is a great deal of argument about cover design and the languages to be used inside the passport, and I imagine that it will be some time before we are able to come to a decision.

If the House is not to decide, and the Government take the decision and advise Her Majesty to exercise or withhold her Prerogative, as would be the constitutional position, are not the Government flouting the control of the House in saying that the executive in Brussels is superior not only to Her Majesty but to this House?

I can assure my hon. Friend that the reason why we give so much priority to having a debate before a decision is made is to enable us to take the views of the House fully into account.

I have given careful consideration to the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Thur-rock (Dr. McDonald) about the terms of a news-letter issued by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. I have concluded that the publication does not raise issues such as would justify me in giving precedence over the Orders of the Day to a motion relating to it.