asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the visit of Field Marshal Lord Carver to Southern Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the visit to Rhodesia of the British Resident Commissioner-designate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of Field Marshal Lord Carver's mission to Rhodesia.

I will be having detailed discussions with Lord Carver on Thursday when he returns from Africa and there will be a debate in the House on Friday on the Rhodesia Sanctions Order when I hope, Mr. Speaker, that I may be able to catch your eye.

Does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary accept that there is in reality no more prospect of integrating the terrorist forces with the Rhodesian security forces than there would be of integrating the IRA with the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does he not accept that any real prospect of a peaceful settlement must involve concentration on a settlement between the Rhodesian Government and the internal nationalist parties led by Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole?

No, Sir, and I think that that is a rather foolish statement by the hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that this very complex problem can he likened to the other extremely complex problem which is Ireland, he is cheapening both issues.

But will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at least not close his mind on the central point raised by my hon. Friend, so that if the noble Lord, upon his return, advises the right hon. Gentleman that some movement in this direction is necessary, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will make it quite clear that he will be receptive to advice in that sense?

I am open-minded about any solution in Rhodesia. I am only too delighted to listen to anyone. I do not have a closed mind. What I have to try to do is bring about a peaceful negotiated solution. That is extremely difficult when one is faced by two forces, neither of which has won or lost and both of which have to be brought together somehow to a ceasefire.

Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary say what progress Lord Carver or anyone else has made in reconciling the very serious differences among, on the one hand, those African leaders with internal political support—namely, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole—and, on the other, those African leaders with external support, namely, Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that until those differences are reconciled there is really not much hope of any solution?

One of the things that has bedevilled the whole problem of Rhodesia is the divisions of opinion between the nationalist leaders. There are at least four people who could be thought of as presidential candidates among the black nationalist leaders. It is not quite as simple as to speak of external and internal support. Mr. Nkomo has an active party inside Rhodesia. He is not himself inside Rhodesia. Similarly, both Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole claim—and I have little doubt that they claim it accurately—that they have supporters among those fighting in the liberation forces. But it is not as simple as to say that it is an internal and an external situation. Both those nationalist leaders, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Sithole, constantly claim that they have support among the liberation forces. I think this is true.

As the disbandment of Smith's so-called security forces is one of the major problems, does not my right hon. Friend agree that following the dismissal, the pay-off or what-the-hell of the white officers of the Smith regime, the formation of contingents containing both the African forces of Smith's regime and the independent liberation forces forged together under Commonwealth officers might be a way to solve this problem, as I have already suggested in correspondence?

I have no doubt that some form of integration of the forces will be necessary when Zimbabwe reaches independence. That is what we are talking about when we are talking about the Zimbabwe national army. All I can say to those right hon. and hon. Members who find the concept difficult—there must be very few people on either side of the House who do not find it difficult, and I do not claim that it will be easy—is that that sort of reconciliation has to take place if those groups of people who are currently fighting each other are to live in peace in Zimbabwe. This is part of the reconciliation that has to take place in an independent country.

I think that most hon. Members will prefer to discuss these matters in a rather more lengthy way on Friday, but does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary agree that, unless the differing warring factions are integrated, whatever settlement is subsequently arrived at will be an open invitation for a subsequent civil war if Angola is any experience to go by, and that therefore integration is absolutely crucial to the success of any future constitutional settlement?

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The fact of the matter is that the threat of civil war after independence is every bit as much a part of my anxieties as is a breakdown of law and order during a transitional period. One cannot just take a short-term solution and get to independence. The House would not thank me, nor would the Rhodesian people, if the end result of all this was an independent Zimbabwe wracked by civil war, as has happened in Angola. I hope that when the House discusses this it will look at the complexities of the issue and look, for instance, at the parallels which exist—Angloa is one—where outside forces have come in and taken part, in addition to a civil war.

rose—

We shall return to this subject on Question No. 8.

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

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

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

The debate on the renewal of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 on Friday 11th November will, I hope, offer a full opportunity to the House to hear a report on the discussions which have taken place on the transitional and post-independence constitution in Rhodesia.

As the Zambians are reported in today's papers to be urging Lord Carver to drop proposals for elections under the interim administration of Zimbabwe, could not the Government reaffirm that such elections, held under universal suffrage as speedily as possible, are the best possible estimate of the relative strengths of all those who must later work together and collaborate for a free and prosperous Zimbabwe?

An absolutely essential ingredient in the Anglo-United States agreement is that it would put to the people of Rhodesia the choice of who was going to be the President and who was going to form the Government in an independent Zimbabwe. While the nationalist leaders remain as divided as they are, I can see no other way of resolving the problem of the leadership. We therefore stand firmly by the proposition that there must be lair elections during the transitional period.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that his basic package of proposals —proposals which are sound and widely accepted—is to some extent endangered by multiple unreasonable and prejudiced attempts to modify it? Will he take a rather harder line on this and, in particular, resist any suggestion that transitory security arrangements should be handled either by the guerrillas or by the present white Rhodesian forces?

One of the crucial aspects of the arrangements for the maintenance of law and order is that the liberation forces and the Rhodesian defence forces should come under the command of the Resident Commissioner-designate and, therefore, have a unified command structure during the transitional period. As to the other matter, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We can look at modifications and at widening the areas of agreement—I very much accept that—but once we start to unscramble the package we get hack to the situation that Rhodesia has always been in and in which all initiatives have been made: that everyone wants to take that which he can agree on and to reject that which he cannot accept. There will never be total agreement about a negotiated settlement. What we must do is produce a fair and reasonable compromise, and the White Paper is an attempt to do that.

Does not the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary agree that the chances of a settlement would be very much easier if Her Majesty's Government stopped giving aid to those who help and succour terrorists who murder and destroy black and white Rhodesians alike?

I agree that if we were to be giving that sort of aid, we wouldߞ

We are.

I do not know to what the hon. Gentleman is referring, but I suspect that it is the aid programme to Mozambique. I believe that that aid programme will not in any way succour guerrilla fighters inside Mozambique, and the way the projects are organised and the way that the aid programme is run to that country will ensure that.

Is it not the case that the overwhelming evidence from other countries in Africa has been that, whenever independence has had to be attained by means of an armed struggle, any settlement has to be primarily with those who fought in the liberation movement and not with those who tried to seek a settlement internally?

We must recognise the realities of power in any settlement, yet we must also preserve a situation in which the new Government of the country is genuinely the Government of the majority. That is extremely difficult to do. The Organisation of African Unity has hitherto made an important distinction. It recognises the Patriotic Front in relation to the armed struggle, but it recognises all nationalist leaders in relation to a fair election as being possible leaders of a future Zimbabwe. That is a distinction that I hope the Organisation of African Unity will maintain.

Will the Foreign Secretary give information to the House, further to that which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton), showing, why he attaches so much importance to the views and opinions of the front-line Presidents when these people run neither efficient nor democratic societies, when the factions represented by Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa are highly critical of the importance placed upon the frontline Presidents, and when Mr. Sithole and Bishop Muzorewa represent perhaps 80 per cent. of black Rhodesians?

It is important to recognise that the essential factor is the people who will live in an independent Zimbabwe.

That is the 80 per cent., is it not?

That is the hon. Gentleman's estimation of the percentage. They are the people who must elect their Government. But, in achieving a negotiated settlement, it would be a foolish man who thought that one could ignore either South Africa or the front-line Presidents. I assure the House that I had no wish to spend my summer holidays touring round African States. I did so because I believed that that was necessary if a settlement was to be secured.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the illegal régime in Rhodesia is being sustained by South Africa? What international action, through the United Nations, is to be taken against South Africa? The illegal régime in Rhodesia is condemned by the whole world with the exception of South Africa and some hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

It is, of course, impossible totally to separate these issues into packages, but one of the matters that I made clear in the spring was that we would not make trade-offs or deals with South Africa, and that we would treat Rhodesia, Namibia and the South African internal situation as separate issues. That has some advantages now, because in the Security Council recently we were dealing with South Africa's internal decisions as a separate matter.

Does the Foreign Secretary realise that there is a widespread suspicion in the area that it is the purpose of the Government, despite the expressions in the White Paper, to seek to impose a solution upon the Rhodesian people discriminately, preferring the Patriotic Front to the proper course of democratic elections in Rhodesia itself? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity absolutely to renounce any inclination of this kind, in order to silence those suspicions?

Only a fool would deny that there are not those suspicions. I do not think that they are as widespread as the right hon. Member suggests, but they are certainly there, and they are real. I take this opportunity, as I have on many other occasions, to say that we have no intention whatever of imposing a solution. We cannot do so. I have always made clear to the House the limitations of the Government's power in this situation. We can try to produce a negotiated settlement and we can help bring people together, but in the last analysis they have to want to come together. If they will not come together, if they will not compromise, we shall not get a negotiated settlement and the conflict will continue. I have never made any secret to this House of the difficulties which confront the Government. However, we stand firmly by the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he will take to help British subjects who may be considering purchasing, or have purchased, property on the La Ribina estate near Vera in Spain.

:British subjects seeking my right hon. Friend's Department's advice about the purchase of properties in Spain are advised to consult a Spanish lawyer. Lists of lawyers are provided on request. Our overseas representatives cannot advise upon or intervene in such transactions.

Does; my hon. Friend agree that many British subjects who have retired and decided to have a retirement home in Spain, like my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Hill, have got into great diffi- culty when they have gone to the La Ribina estate and found that there are no homes there, and that there never will be any homes allowed there? I have a pile of correspendence from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about this. Will the consulate give greater help to constituents like that who find themselves in great difficulty there?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very concerned about the plight of his constituents and others who have had the same sort of experience, but I am sure that, on reflection, he will recognise that it is not possible for the Government to become involved in disputes between parties to a private contract. However, everything else that we can do to help, we shall do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects a British diplomat to visit Cambodia.

There are no plans for such a visit. On 24th October, because of the Government's continuing concern over Cambodian violations of human rights, we informed the Cambodian Government that it was not our intention to proceed with the appointment of a British ambassador to that country.

I am delighted that we have protested to the Cambodian authorities about the atrocities that have taken place, but can the Minister recall any occasion in the past two years when any British spokesman has protested in any international forum about the atrocities in Cambodia? In the past four months the Cambodian régime has made 30 attacks across the Thai frontier. Surely this constitutes a threat to international peace.

There are two entirely separate questions here. First, there is the question of human rights in Cambodia. As I have told the House before, we are considering whether we can and should raise this in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The second is the question of possible aggression, of incursions across the frontier of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. It is obviously primarily a matter for the Government of Thailand to consider whether they wish to try to raise it in the Security Council or elsewhere.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in any representations that the British Government are able to make that deep disquiet is equally felt by many of us who supported the struggle of the Vietnamese people against American intervention and against colonialism throughout? Will he make it perfectly clear that we feel complete revulsion at the reports of these atrocities? Will he make inquiries also about the safety of Prince Sihanouk, who throughout stood out firmly against the ill-conceived and totally wrong American invasion of Cambodia, which brought this state of affairs about and was supported by many Conservative Members?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The fact that concern about human rights in Cambodia is felt equally strongly on the Labour Benches by many Members such as my hon. Friend, who showed during the war in Indo-China where their sympathies lay, means that what they say will perhaps have more impact than what is said by some other Members. I shall certainly see whether we can find some way of making that clear. I do not think that Prince Sihanouk is in danger at the present moment.

Does the Minister agree that what is happening internally in Cambodia is as grave as Stalin's suppression of the Kulaks and Hitler's liquidation of the Jews, and is one of the most appalling atrocities that we have faced since the Second World War? That being so, is there any reason why Her Majesty's Government should not immediately raise the matter in the Security Council under Chapter 9 of the Charter and further, or in the alternative, demand an independent international commission of inquiry to look into the matter forthwith?

I have informed the House already that the Government share the profound concern that has been expressed here about these appalling atrocities. The question is how we can raise this matter in an international forum. Because these are primarily domestic actions against the population of Cambodia itself, they clearly are a violation of human rights, and the correct forum in which to raise these matters is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. As I have already said, we are considering whether we can raise it in that forum when it next meets.

Since the evidence suggests that more than 1 million Cambodians have been slaughtered in the last two years, and since it is a known fact that Cambodia is at war with Vietnam and with Thailand, thus constituting a threat to international peace, why have this Government and, indeed, the Western nations been so slow in bringing this issue before the General Assembly of the United Nations and thus exposing the gross atrocities of this Communist régime.

Double standards.

There is no question of double standards. The same problem arises in any circumstances where a Government are taking action against their own population, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I can mention a number of other countries where atrocities—not perhaps on the same scale but of a similar nature—are taking place, and they are not raised either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly of the United Nations. As I mentioned before, the correct body to discuss these matters is the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. In every probability, we shall raise this case, as we raised the case of Uganda, at the next meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he is making in the international discussions relating to the law of the sea.

The new informal negotiating text produced after the Sixth Session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference in July contains a number of improvements.

Can we not do a bit more to make the public realise the importance of the vital issues involved in these discussions? Does it not appear that some other countries which are also concerned are dragging their feet on this important issue? If we do not do more, these discussions will go on for ever.

I agree very much with the first part of what my hon. Friend said. It is rather surprising that the public and the Press in this and most other countries have not recognised that we are talking about the future disposition of a considerable part of the world's remaining natural resources. We are doing all that we can to urge on all the other Governments involved the necessity of agreement in this vital matter, but that is a large number of Governments. Deep divisions of national interest are at stake here, not of the most common kind between rich countries and poor countries, mainly, but between coastal States and non-coastal States, between the countries that have the technology to exploit their resources and those that do not, and it is not easy to resolve those differences. I think that it is remarkable that we have got as far as we have. We have now a single text. It is not altogether satisfactory in certain respects, but I hope and believe that we can get it into a satisfactory state by the end of the next session of the conference.

Is the Minister aware that the one agreement reached in the Law of the Sea Conference is the simple proposition that the best conservationists are the coastal States, they having most at stake? Is he aware also of the irony that the maritime nations of the world are taking 200 miles of the sea as their exclusive right for fishing and other purposes but, because of the EEC arrangements, the United Kingdom, with 65 per cent. of the fishing pond of the EEC—most of it in Scottish waters —will not even have control, far less exclusive control, over 50 miles?

It is not the case that the principle which the hon. Lady mentions is the only matter that has been agreed in the conference. There is a considerable range of matters, including some of great importance, on which an international consensus has now been arrived at in the conference, some much more important than the matter that the hon. Lady mentions. She has raised a question which has nothing to do with the conference—the question of the EEC's fishery régime. I can only suggest that she raises it in the proper form and at the proper time.

Will my hon. Friend say whether, during the discussions, Her Majesty's Government will be able to support the clause in the single informal negotiating text which deals with the underwater cultural heritage, as it is important that we arrive at a common basis for the protection of underwater archaeological remains?

My hon. Friend has mentioned one of the points on which there is a substantial degree of consensus in the conference. The preservation of the cultural heritage beneath the sea is one of the many detailed but none the less important points that the conference has been considering. There is a substantial likelihood that we shall be able to reach agreement on it.

Can the Minister make clear whether the 200-mile fishery limit is now de jure or de facto? In other words, is it now part of international law, or is it merly accepted by most countries?

All that this conference is doing is trying to establish a new law of the sea. If we finally reach agreement on a new convention it will be for individual Governments to ratify it, and when a sufficient number have ratified—that number has not yet been decided—it will become part of international law. We are, therefore, quite a long way from making it international law at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will state the estimated cost in 1977–78 and 1978–79 of the British Army of the Rhine and also its cost to Great Britain in deutschemarks; and if he will make a statement on his agreement with Bonn to phase out entirely West Germany's partial compensation for this expenditure.

Excluding equipment, the estimated budgetary cost of British Forces in Germany in 1977–78 is about £700 million. The estimated foreign exchange cost of British Forces in Germany in 1977–78 is about £540 million. Estimates of costs for 1978–79 are not yet available.

Will the Foreign Secretary reconsider this astonishing agreement? Does he not agree that it is grossly unfair that the wealthier country, after two years, should cease to make any contribution at all to this enormous burden of joint military preparation?

I think that it is a very satisfactory outcome to an extremely difficult problem. DM475 million is a large sum by any reckoning. Averaged over the three years covered by the agreement, it works out at nearly 50 per cent. more than the cash payments in each of the years covered by the previous agreement.

Does not my right hon. Friend recognise that, in effect, this agreement provides for Great Britain permanently to subsidise the West German economy, and that this is the reality of what we are doing? Does he regard this as satisfactory; and, if so, how long does he expect that it will continue? Does he regard it as reasonable that it should go on for ever?

It is not a permanent subsidy. The forces that we maintain on the mainland of Europe are in accordance with treaty obligations, and they have a vital role to play in the forward defence strategy of the Alliance. They are a major element in Britain's contribution to the collective defence of the Alliance, and they make an important contribution to the security of the United Kingdom itself. They are there for our own national interests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to improve commercial support services at British posts and embassies overseas ; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is at present looking into these questions with other Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State for Trade, in the light of the issues raised in the CPRS report and from other sources.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as the pound is revalued upwards and our exports become less price-competitive, the effectiveness of these commercial services becomes more and more important? Is he aware that it is now about three months since we had the CPRS Report, parts of which are widely welcomed in industry? Does he not now feel that it is time that something was done in this matter?

I assure my hon. Friend that we give the highest priority to the effectiveness of our commercial services abroad, and that we are determined to apply any good lessons from the CPRS report, and, indeed, any good lessons from other sources, on how to improve them. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to note that we receive a very great number of commendations from business men and others about the quality of the services which are provided. But we are not complacent. We want to improve them all the time.

While paying tribute to the improved commercial services at most British embassies, may I urge the Minister to turn his attention to some of the smaller countries in South America, and some countries such as the Philippines and Thailand, where, because of the lack of commercial services to potential exporters from this country, many export orders appear to be going to our competitors?

The hon. Gentleman has made a very valid and important point, which needs to be borne in mind when the CPRS Report is evaluated. Export success, of course, is not only the winning of large orders in a few countries but is also made up of many successful smaller orders in many smaller countries.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the commercial support services at our embassy in Peking have already been so much improved that they are negotiating with the Chinese about the sale of Harriers? Whether or not such negotiations are taking place, will my hon. Friend at least tell the House whether the Chinese have approached us on that matter, and what is the attitude of the Foreign Office on it?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is not normal to go into detail on such points, but I can assure him that in Peking, as elsewhere, we are determined to follow up every opportunity that can properly be followed up for trade opportunities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is prepared to take in furtherance of internationally agreed action on hijacking.

The Government played an active part as co-sponsor of the recent resolution of the United Nations on this subject and are pressing for ratification by all Government:; of the three main international conventions on aircraft security, particularly The Hague Convention on unlawful seizure of aircraft.

Will the Minister tell the House how successful the Government have been in trying to obtain additional signatories to the convention and, in particular, whether they have taken any action in concert with our European allies to act against countries providing safe refuge, whether by withdrawal of aircraft services or by other means?

It is ratification rather than signature of these conventions that is required, and we have been active. I mention the fact that we were very active in the United Nations only a week or two ago in getting a resolution passed which specifically called on all members of the United Nations to ratify their conventions. There are now about 80 ratifications of the three main conventions concerned.

Would it be possible for the Minister to consider inducements, as well as sanctions, against countries which may be tempted to give sanctuary to such people as a means of achieving a really complete system of security against these terrorists?

I am not entirely sure what kind of inducements the hon. Gentleman has in mind. If he will write to me about the matter, I shall consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Ninth Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting recently held in London, particularly regarding the conservation of marine living resources and exploitation of mineral resources.

The Government regard the outcome of the meeting as satisfactory. The participants agreed to recommend to their Governments that they conclude before the end of next year a definitive regime for the conservation, including rational use, of Antarctic marine living resources. They also recommended rapid action towards an internationally agreed approach to the exploration and exploitation of Antarctic minerals. I have arranged to place in the Library of the House a copy of the statement released to the Press by the chairman after the close of the meeting.

Did the consultative meeting discuss the possibility of an exclusive economic marine zone around the Antarctic land mass, and, if so, what conclusions did it reach about it?

That was not in itself discussed. However, the general issue of the way in which we intend to deal with the problems of economic resources in the area was central to the whole of the meeting. What was encouraging was the way in which all members of the meeting agreed that they had to have an international outlook, and to look not just at their own interests but to the interests of the international community as a whole. This was an extremely encouraging meeting.

In this context, does the Minister accept that there are stocks of fish in the South Atlantic equivalent at least to those which we have fished for centuries in the North Atlantic? Will he consider declaring, or is he prepared to declare, a 200-mile limit line from Asuncion, St. Helena, Falklands and South Georgia? Furthermore, is he aware that there is an active South Atlantic Committee which has members from all sections of the industry and Members from both sides of the House and which is backed by the White Fish Authority, and in this context will he be prepared, say, to finance a vessel for a commercial survey in that part of the world?

The question of a 200-mile fishing zone around the British Antarctic territory is being considered, obviously, but I believe it is vitally important that we do not try to continue to present and promote national interests in this respect. Obviously there are many national interests, but the real value of this meeting of the members to the Antarctic Treaty is that they sometimes subsume their national interest in the greater interest. This is of greater value in trying to deal with the question of their convention for the conservation of fishing resources in the area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he expects the EEC to adhere to the International Sugar Agreement recently signed by 72 countries; and if he will make a statement.

At the United Nations Sugar Conference, which ended on 7th October, the draft of a new International Sugar Agreement was concluded, and it has been open for signature since 28th October. The agreement contains a specific provision under which the EEC can accede on special terms to be negotiated. I hope that these negotiations can begin as soon as possible with a view to participation by the EEC in the agreement.

Whilst thanking the Minister for that reply, in view of the failure of the EEC to sign the previous International Sugar Agreement and the paramount importance of such an agreement to sugar producers of the Third World, may I ask him to use his best endeavours to secure Community signature to prevent the disposal of unwanted sugar, which could disrupt world prices?

The hon. Gentleman will agree that the Government have made clear on several occasions during recent months the paramount importance, as he puts it, of this agreement, particularly to a number of developing countries. We are determined to do all we can to facilitate an early agreement with the EEC and others.

Will my hon Friend confirm that the agreement includes an offsetting amount of 1·4 million tonnes imported from the Third World, and does he agree that, even with this, the likelihood of the dumping of EEC sugar on world markets is very great? Will my hon. Friend tell the House the likely maximum amount that could be dumped and what is the Government's attitude to this?

There is a danger of dumping, and we want to make sure that there is not dumping at the expense of the economies of the developing countries. The details of the arrangements between the EEC and the other signatories to the agreement have yet to be finalised.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the French Foreign Minister to discuss EEC affairs.

At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st and 22nd November.

Will the Minister discuss with the French Foreign Minister the growing influence of the Euro-Communists within the EEC, a matter that must disturb many hon. Members on both sides of the House? In particular, will the Minister raise with him the question of the continuing support of Russian foreign policy by these Euro-Communists, a fact which one day may have a serious effect upon our relations with the United States of America?

I shall certainly draw the concern of the hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend's attention. But, clearly, it is difficult to look seriously at European politics today without taking account of the significance of the Euro-Communists.

As the Prime Minister stated in a letter of 30th September to the General Secretary of the Labour Party that major reforms of the common agricultural policy and more genuine parliamentary control over EEC legislation were necessary, can my hon. Friend say when the Government will be bringing forward proposals to achieve both these aims?

The Government are working continuously for both these objectives. We have made it clear on every possible occasion that in terms of the CAP we want to see steps taken to remove unnecessary costly surpluses and to make sure that the interests of producers, which are important, are effectively balanced by the interests of consumers.

Although the Minister is not responsible for Her Majesty's official Opposition, when he meets the French Foreign Minister does he feel that he will be in a position to assure him that the determination of Her Majesty's Government that we should reach the target date of 1978 for direct elections is obviously shared by the Front Bench and Back Benches of the Tory Opposition and that it is unlikely that they will do anything to sabotage those attempts and defer European elections until 1979 or thereafter?

I shall certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the progress being made towards enlargement of the EEC; 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 progress of negotiations relating to the enlargement of the EEC.

Negotiations are in progress on Greek accession. The procedure under the treaty is that the Portuguese and Spanish applications have been referred by the Council of Foreign Ministers to the Commission and its opinion is expected early in 1978.

Do the Government recognise that the usual transitional arrangements for five years may need to be modified in the case of Spain, Greece and Portugal? Is it not the case that the Spanish Government have been talking about a transitional period of up to 15 years, and is not that quite reasonable?

I think that the Spanish Prime Minister, Senor Suarez, made clear only a few days ago that Spain was looking for a normal transitional period. Whether that can be achieved is difficult to judge without seeing the Commission's assessment. But no one should doubt that the Community, in making a decision to enlarge from nine to 12, will face some formidable problems of adjustment, not least in the economic issues and the whole question of common agricultural produce for the Mediterranean.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that there will be widespread agreement for the statement in the Prime Minister's letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party that there will be far less danger of an over-centralised, over-bureaucratised, over-harmonised Community with 12 member States than with nine? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm, therefore, his full support for the principle of the earliest possible membership of Spain, Portugal and Greece, and that there will be no question of any free membership preparatory period as has been suggested in the case of Spain?

I certainly declare my unequivocal support for enlargement from nine to 12. I believe that it is crucially important in order to buttress the democratic and political elements for which I believe the European Community stands most strongly.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that if the Community were enlarged through Scotland gaining independent representation at Council of Ministers level, that independence would not be equal to separation?

There is a great deal of regional and even national autonomy within the Community. There is no doubt that Britain, when discussing the devolution of Scotland, will insist on the unity of the United Kingdom. That is central for us all, and that is central to the devolution Bills now before the House. That principle will apply in all areas of foreign and international relations.

Was not the Foreign Secretary a little reckless in suggesting in his last but one answer that much harmonisation should be put aside as a result of enlargement? Is that not tantamount to saying that many of the precepts built into the treaty—the constitution of the Community—should no longer be followed by the Commission in drafting legislation?

The House itself takes views on these issues and I believe that the Scrutiny Committee recently drew attention to the question of harmonising doorstep salesmen in the Community. It is that sort of harmonisation and over-bureaucratisation that both critics and supporters of entry unite in condemning and consider unnecessary. The Commission would be well advised to put aside that sort of thing now.

Have the Government done anything to persuade Spain to give better treatment to Gibraltar as a condition of the Government's consenting to Spain's joining the Common-Market?

No. Her Majesty's Government's attitude to Spain and Gibraltar is clear. It is to welcome Spanish entry to the European Community for wider political and democratic reasons. It is also to make clear to the Spanish people that any community which involved political, economic and all the other responsibilities of membership would find it difficult to have a situation in which, for example, we could if we wished—though we do not, because of the new improved climate between our two countries—have the existing restrictions condemned, say, in the Belgrade conference. We are aiming to improve Spanish relations with this country and, at the same time, with the Gibraltarian people so that this issue can be resolved between democratic States and democratic peoples, giving full account to the views of the people of Gibraltar.

May we pin down the Foreign Secretary a little on the general point? Does he now agree with us that, contrary to the impression given in the Prime Minister's letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, he sees enlargement not as a way of weakening the Community but as an opportunity to reopen for discussion some of the methods and workings of the Community which have proved unsatisfactory?

One of the aspects that might come out of enlargement is that the decision-making structure of the Community is looked at. Some feel that the whole of the common agricultural policy should be examined. I think that one of the "fall-outs "of enlargement is that some of these problems can be concentrated on. However, I feel that we should treat the applications for enlargement on their merits and not with preconditions. If we were to allow every member State to make its particular hobbyhorse a precondition of enlargement we should not get on with that process. We stand strongly and firmly for enlargement and we believe that it will strengthen the Community. It will, however, change the Community. A Community of 12 will be different in political shape, structure and content from a Community of nine.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives he will take to ensure that Her Majesty's Government will secure reform of the common fisheries policy, in terms of policies and timing.

The Government are continuing to press energetically for an early and satisfactory revision of the common fisheries policy. We have made it clear that this is one of our major objectives in the Community.

I thank the Minister for agreeing that the matter is of extreme urgency. Will he tell the House what legal room he considers he has, under present arrangements, to declare a 50-mile unilateral limit for conservation purposes? Our fishermen hunt for fish for human consumption, not—as many do in the other member States—for industrial consumption, and are, therefore, better conservationists. Will not the hon. Gentleman also realise that these fishermen, who were pawns in terms of EEC entry, are now—and this is a very serious matter —pawns in the common fisheries negotiations with third countries, and that the 65 per cent—.

Order. Question Time is a time not for argument but for questions.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that conservation must be a priority in any future policy. If agreement is not soon reached, stocks of fish may be damaged beyond repair.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister of State aware that in this Chamber a few days ago his colleague, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, stated that at the last Ministers' meeting he had been so incensed that he had stated that he might go it alone if he were forced to do so. Is that Her Majesty's Government's policy? Would my hon. Friend care to comment?

The Government's policy is to work for a sensible common fisheries policy. However, to be sensible and effective that policy must take account of the fact that approximately 60 per cent. of the stocks of fish available to the Community are in British waters. Furthermore, our fellow members of the Community must recognise the contribution that is being made by Britain towards the Community's needs. That is something that we are determined to see reflected in the outcome of the discussions about a policy.

Can we be sure of securing our objectives on this, or any other, vital matter if we have bound our hands in advance by declaring our membership of the Community to be permanent and unalterable?

The right hon. Gentleman knows better than most that no Parliament can bind any successor, but what we have repeatedly said is that we are now determined to work as hard and as effectively as we can, together with our colleagues in the Community, to make the best of the Community in the interests of our own people, as well as those of the people of the Community as a whole. The interests of Britain will be better served by getting on with that than by continuing to argue whether the decision in the referendum was right or wrong.

Will the ban on herring fishing in most of the waters around our coast continue into 1978–79?

We are determined to take wheatever measures are necessary for conservation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pursuing this point with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he plans to hold in November and December with the Foreign Ministers of the other member States of the Community on the progress being made in each to introduce direct elections to the European Parliament in 1978.

It has been agreed to review the progress of legislation in the member States at each meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council. The Council will meet on 22nd November and on 19th and 20th December.

What would be the grounds and reasons that would cause the Government to feel justified in asking other member States to postpone these elections until 1979?

The Government have no intention at present of asking them to do so. As the House is well aware, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 3rd November that the Bill for direct elections will be presented tomorrow, and judgment will have to be made in the light of the progress made on the Bill.

Will my hon. Friend impress upon his colleagues in Europe that in the unlikely event of the direct elections Bill passing through the House and, as a consequence, direct elections, unfortunately, taking place, Her Majesty's Government will vigorously oppose any attempt on the part of that directly-elected Assembly to take powers away from the Council of Ministers?

I cannot agree with the hypothesis upon which my hon. Friend poses his question. I am sure that when legislation passes through the House and when we have direct elections the Council of Ministers will be fully aware of its responsibilities in relation to national Parliaments.

Is it not an insult to the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland that, until there are direct elections, Northern Ireland will be the only region of the United Kingdom that is not directly represented in the Common Market Parliament? Is this not a disgraceful situation which has existed since the Tories were last in office? What do the Government intend to do to ensure that justice is provided for Northern Ireland, which has so often been lectured by successive Governments about democracy—

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that this matter should be raised through the usual channels. It is not something that is directly related to the House.

Can my hon. Friend, in pursuance of his earlier remark about the Prime Minister's statement of 3rd November, confirm reports that the Government will introduce a guillotine motion on the direct elections Bill immediately after Second Reading?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will recognise that that is a question that is best directed to people other than me.

The Minister is using his best endeavours, but does he not think it lamentable that the Government should have wasted a full year on this and brought us to the present difficulty? With the benefit of hindsight, does he not regret that he did not take our advice a year ago and start the Bill then, in which case the details of the voting system and all the other difficulties would have been satisfactorily settled and we would be ready, with the other countries, to meet the target date?

I am sure that the House will watch with interest which voting system the hon. Member and his friends choose to follow when the Bill is before the House. It is clearly the case that if the House adopts the Government's preferred system, which is outlined in the Bill, there is a possibility of attaining the agreed timetable, but if hon. Members opposite pursue the view that they are now expressing they will hold a degree of responsibility for our not being able to meet the timetable on time.

In agreeing with the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) that we regret the delay in the introduction of the Bill, and in accepting his implied thanks to the Liberal Party for getting it back on the agenda of politics—which thanks I am sure he would like to express —may I ask the Minister to try to discover whether the Tory Party will be as good Europeans as they claim and vote for the only system that will make it possible for elections to take place next year?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those of us who wish to see this Bill pass through the House will look forward eagerly to the actions of Conservative Members. The decision that I understand a number of Conservative Members will take in relation to their preferred system, as opposed to that in the Bill, is one that will leave them with a high degree of responsibility for delay in meeting the timetable of commitments into which we have entered.

In his negotiations, will the Minister make it clear to other EEC members that the people of Scotland regard it as a gross insult that they have been allocated only eight seats in the European Parliament? If he believes that there is any integrity in the so-called unity of the kingdom, will be guarantee that Scotland is at least given parity with Denmark, particularly when it is deprived of the right of veto?

The situation is quite clear. The number of seats that have been allocated to the United Kingdom is 81, and we propose that these 81 seats should be allocated proportionately to the various parts of the United Kingdom. Thus, if the hon. Lady's desire were followed, it is clear that any increase in representation for Scotland could be done only at the expense of other parts of the United Kingdom, which would give it a disproportional e representation in relation to the rest of the kingdom.

When my hon. Friend refers to the Government's preferred electoral system, will he bear in mind and confirm that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches are grimly determined that the system should not be changed, and that the Government have no mandate from the Labour Party or any other political party—apart from a small number of Liberal Members—to play about with or change our electoral system?

Obviously, I take note of what my hon. Friend says, but he has no more basis than I have for any assertion about what the views are at the moment, because the opinion of the House has not yet been tested. I look forward to supporting the Government's preferred system, as I believe it is the right system and one which will give us the opportunity of meeting our target obligations by 1978.

Is the Minister aware how pleasant it is to be able to agree so wholeheartedly with his hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)? Is it not a fact that the Government, in the person of the Prime Minister, have given a solemn assurance that there will be a free vote on the subject, as have the Opposition? Is the Minister now seeking to imply that that will not be the case in the course of this operation?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recall that the Prime Minister said there would be a free vote on the method. That is when we shall have the opportunity of testing the view of the House. I have stated quite clearly my view in relation to the Government's preferred system, and I equally stated quite clearly that the Opposition would have a large degree of responsibility if, by their vote in a free vote, they delayed the implementation of something to which, allegedly, they were committed.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance and help? A short time ago, in a supplementary question, I sought from the Government a statement of what action they intended to take to ensure that democracy was provided to Northern Ireland, in the sense that it would now have a representative in the Common Market Parliament. I was told by the Minister responsible that I should seek the information through the usual channels.

Order. I am seeking not to stop the hon. Gentleman apportioning blame but to ask him what is the point of order.

The point of order, Mr. Speaker, is quite simply that I have no usual parliamentary channels. Therefore, will you tell me how I can force the Government to do what they are always telling the Ulster people to do, namely, to provide democracy—in this case to Northern Ireland—and elect a Member to the Common Market Parliament?

I fear that all that I can do for the hon. Gentleman is to give him my sympathy. I am unable to decide the content of Ministers' answers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a fundamental matter of democracy concerning 1·5 million approximate people—[Interruption.] The approximation was intended not as an insult to the people of Ireland but only to my lack of statistical knowledge. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Is it in order for matters of fundamental democracy to be brushed aside with the suggestion that this House is run by people called Whips? I know that they are mysterious people, but is this not a very serious infringement of the rights of the House?

Order. For as long as I have been in the House there have been complaints about answers from Ministers, and apparently a general dislike—I do not want to make any enemies—of the Whip system, but it is part of our being.