asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the gross national product of the Falkland Islands for the years 1974, 1975 and 1976; and what is his estimate for the current year.

The gross national product of the Falkland Islands was £2·307 million for 1974 and £2·768 for 1975. No figures are available for 1976 or 1977. The colony lacks a statistics department and maintains only the basic statistics essential for taxation and cost of living purposes. Lord Shackleton's Economic Survey of the Falkland Islands gives the gross national product figures from 1965 to 1974. The 1975 figure is based on a projection of these figures. It would be misleading to project these figures further.

Does the Minister agree that the gross national product is not really static in the Falklands and that the greatest enemy to their future progress is the political uncertainty? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is need for diversification, and the extension of the airfield? Will he do his best to bring these things about?

The question of the islands' economy being static was a matter for reference in Lord Shackleton's report. It was he who in that report drew attention to the static nature of the economy. The greatest difficulty or bar to the development of the islands' economy is the dispute that exists between ourselves and the Argentine Government.

Does my hon. Friend accept that one way to underwrite the assurances already given by Her Majesty's Government that no change will be made in the status of the Falklands without their consent and agreement would be for the Government to examine again ways in which they will enable the islands to get on with some of the developments that they want to carry out?

We are getting on with the job of trying to ascertain which development projects can be got off the ground within the islands. The much broader issue of resources around the islands is subject to economic cooperation with the Argentine Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on policy towards the continued independence of the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands are not independent but are a United Kingdom dependent territory. There is no demand at present from their population of 1,950 people for independence.

Does the Minister confirm having received a message from the new Legislative Council that it is opposed to any change in its present status? Does he accept that if there is any suggestion of making any change during negotiations with Argentina in the face of opposition from the people of the islands, it would be totally resisted by hon. Members in every party in the House and by people in every part of the United Kingdom?

I think that we have given full and adequate assurances, repeatedly, in the last few months that we will not bring anything to this House which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.

Do I understand my hon. Friend now to have given the simple undertaking that there will be no change in the constitutional status of the islands without the consent of the people there?

I have repeated it over and over again. We will not bring anything to this House—this is the firm assurance I have given—which is not acceptable to the islanders themselves.

In spite of that, the House continues to be mystified. Why are the Government negotiating at all with a Fascist-type dictatorhip about the future of a democratic British community? How does the Minister square that with his very proper decision not to extend economic aid to Bolivia, which has an identical régime? Does he share the concern so properly and firmly demonstrated by the United States over the continued violation of human rights in Argentina?

On the first part of the question, we are negotiating because, following my visit to the islands and by agreement with the islands council, it was decided that it was necessary to have negotiations on the economic and sovereignty issues. Otherwise we would let the stalemate of the position of the islands continue, and that would be a much worse prospect for the islanders themselves.

Whether we are talking about the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, or any of the remaining small dependent territories of the Commonwealth, is it not important for the Government to have serious long-term strategy for them all, so that we at least have some idea of what we intend for their future?

Yes. I agree that there is a need for a comprehensive strategy towards all our remaining dependent territories, although each of them presents us with different problems. We have been working on this, and the process of accelerated decolonisation, where that is the wish of the people in those territories, is the basis of that policy.

May I welcome the Minister's reaffirmation of the fact that there will be no change in the sovereignty of the islands without the full consent of the islanders? Will the Government now give and demonstrate a proper commitment to the islanders by undertaking a full range of investment and development projects along the lines of the Shackleton Report?

We are endeavouring to do just that. A number of development projects are already in hand. One of the most important areas is in internal communications. Road building is now under active consideration, along with the whole question of the air services. In a number of areas, therefore, we are trying to implement the Shackleton Report.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will seek a declaration from the International Court at The Hague that Argentina has no valid claim in international law to sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.

No. Sir. In the absence of acceptance by Argentina of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, the Court would not entertain an application by the United Kingdom for such a declaration.

I thank the Minister for that information, of which I was already aware. Will he confirm that Argentina has not accepted that part of the Hague Convention whereby it agreed to be bound by the decision of the International Court? Does this not shed some light on its lack of competence in international law in laying claim to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? May we take it that the question of sovereignty is not a matter that the Minister regards as being for negotiation in his New York meetings later this month?

On the first part of the question, yes, that is the position. On the second part, I cannot say what the right hon. Gentleman wishes me to say. Sovereignty has been part and parcel of the terms of reference of the negotiations and will therefore be subject to negotiation in New York.

In view of the long-standing dispute with the Argentinian people on this matter, does the Minister think that a halfway house, or even a beginning house, could be joint efforts in commercial activities with the hope of better understanding each other? What is my hon. Friend doing about the joint Anglo-Argentinian effort on deep-sea fishing, for example, or on sea-bed exploration for oil?

These very issues are an intrinsic and integral part of the whole negotiations. They are not just about sovereignty they are about the whole issue of political and economic cooperation between Britain, Argentina and the Falkland Islands.

Surely it is time the Government Front Bench realised the growing economic and strategic importance of the Falkland Islands and dependencies. The only way that we can strengthen this situation is by putting in the proper investment and implementing the Shackleton Report. Until then, the Government are hithering and havering and riving a series of ambiguous, totally disingenuous and unsatisfactory answers on this issue.

Order. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) made a statement rather than ask a question. If everyone did that, it would be agony.

Will the Minister confirm that the Falkland Islands are insistent on maintaining links with Britain? Will the British Government maintain at all times their sovereignty over those islands unless a referendum indicates otherwise? Will he further see what economic co-operation can take place between Argentina and the Falkland Islands?

That is exactly what the negotiations are about. They are about the form of economic co-operation between Britain, the Falkland Islands and Argentina. Sovereignty issues are also involved. I repeat yet again that we shall not bring any proposals to the House unless they are acceptable to the islanders.

Is the Minister aware of the widespread opinion that the British Government would give away the Falkland Islands if the House of Commons did not constantly stop them? Will he cease exercising this pressure on the people of the Falkland Islands to accord with the defeatism of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?

The hon. and learned Gentleman does a grave injustice and disservice to the islanders. They are a determined and resilient people and they will not be bullied by Ministers or the House. The negotiations are those that were arranged and agreed with the island councillors when I met them earlier in the year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is prepared to make it his policy to institute an economic boycott of Chile.

The Government continue to keep all aspects of United Kingdom-Chile relations under review, but they do not believe that an economic boycott would be an appropriate or effective way of achieving the stated objectives of British policy.

I welcome recent statements on Chile by the Secretary of State, but is it possible to assure the House that there will be no more military equipment spare parts exported to Chile in the foreseeable future?

We have terminated any arms sales to Chile. We have been fulfilling only the existing contracts that we are obliged to fulfil.

Is it not clear that the Government's policy towards Chile has led to static trade between the two countries, whereas trade between Chile and some of our EEC partners, especially West Germany, is booming? Will the hon. Gentleman estimate against how many countries we should have to impose an economic boycott if we applied the criterion of disagreement with their Governments?

We do not plan to have an economic boycott on Chile. The trade figures with Chile are not bad. They have not gone down badly in the past year or two, despite our strong stance on this issue.

Does my hon. Friend agree that deep disgust has been felt at the statement made by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) about Chile, which is a brutal dictatorship and which the hon Gentleman conveyed as a democracy? Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on his recent statement that our stance is even more determined on Chile than it has ever been so far? Does he agree—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Every question that I ask is always too long for the Opposition. It is an honour with which I shall have to out up Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing of a military nature should go to Chile to uphold its ferocious régime?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Apart from the fact that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) did not convey to me his intention to attack me in the House, may I say, through you, that if the hon. Gentleman can produce any statement that I have made to the effect that the present Chilean régime is a democracy I shall publicly apologise?

Splendid. It is quite evident that Chile is not a democracy by any standards, and does not even begin to approach one.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his negotiations in Strasbourg on 24th November with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the future of Gibraltar.

My discussions on Gibraltar with the Spanish Foreign Minister. Sr. Oreja, in which the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Gibraltar House of Assembly, Mr. Maurice Xiberras, took part, were held in a friendly, co-operative and constructive atmosphere. We have agreed to hold a further such meeting in the new year.

During the discussions—as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Spanish Foreign Minister was strengthened by the presence of Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Maurice Xiberras—was the right hon. Gentleman able to convey to the Spanish Foreign Minister the fact that far from being a sign of weakness, especially in the new atmosphere in Spain. the lifting of frontier restrictions and restrictions against British subjects would be a sign of strength and would do more than anything to make meaningful negotiations possible?

The Spanish Government are under no illusion about the Government's position on this matter, in that if they were to show a gesture of reconciliation and friendship by lifting restrictions I believe that that would encourage good relations between the Gibraltarians and the Spanish people.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that his stand on behalf of the Gibraltarians will be as firm and on the same principles as the stand declared on behalf of the people of the Falkland Islands?

Yes. I think the problems are different, and they need to be seen as such. I believe that the British Government's attitude in Gibraltar is that we will agree to anything that the Gibraltarians agree to, and we have explained that in many other parts of the world. We are trying to encourage a dialogue to eradicate some of the misunderstandings and suspicions that have existed for so many years.

Will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind in any negotiations the desirability of using Gibraltar for a BBC radio transmitter?

I shall certainly consider that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is now in a position to make a statement about progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty.

There has been good progress in the tripartite negotiations. The Government welcomed President Brezhnev's statement of 2nd November. The negotiations resumed on 5th December and we are seeking progress on the outstanding issues, so as to achieve a lasting comprehensive test ban treaty.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the main outstanding problems are those of adequate verification of these tests and the wider participation by nations such as France and China, which will eventually have to be brought into the discussions? On the Soviet offer, which the Government welcome, does the Foreign Secretary not believe that it is now seen to be a little hollow, since it is evident that the Soviet Union was not planning to hold peaceful nuclear explosions for the three-year period in any case?

When I was in Moscow, Mr. Gromyko put very strongly to me the Soviet wish to have PNEs, and it has been a long-standing Soviet position that they need to have such explosions. I do not, therefore, think that I can agree with the hon. Member. This was a significant step forward for the Soviet Union. On the other part of the hon. Gentleman's question, verification is one of the central problems still to be resolved, and that will obviously be the subject of negotiation. As to the participation of other nuclear weapon States, that is a matter for them, but it is desirable that the agreement covers all nuclear weapon States.

In his statement on 2nd November Mr. Brezhnev also suggested that the Soviet Union was ready to reach agreement about a simultaneous halt in the production of nuclear weapons by all States. Has my right hon. Friend any comment to make on that proposal?

We remain ready to enter into any negotiations on our overall objective of comprehensive disarmament, and the cessation of new weapons systems would be extremely helpful. But this is very difficult to achieve and one must adopt a piecemeal approach, starting with a comprehensive test ban treaty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the report of the Central Policy Review Staff on overseas representation.

I have received representations and advice from the institutions reviewed in the report and from their staffs and from a large number of individuals and other bodies in the fields of industry, commerce, the academic world, the arts, and the Church, as well as from members of the public, both in this country and overseas. A notable contribution to the continuing debate was made in another place on 23rd November.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern that is felt because some of the much-criticised recommendations in that report are already being put into effect? Can he say which of those recommendations are being put into effect? Is it the Government's intention to interfere with the overseas service of the BBC?

We have deliberately not made decisions on the report, which is now being considered by the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee. We are listening to all views on this matter. One of the recommendations, to which I think the hon. Member referred, is one of the issues that are being examined. I am not yet in a position to announce any decision. I want to take account of the Sub-Committee's view before I make a decision.

Is my right hon. Friend in a position to confirm the figure in the report which shows that its preferred solution would be about 54 per cent. more expensive than the existing set-up?

I think that my hon. Friend is referring to one aspect of the report which would have a consequential cost because of the merging of the separate Diplomatic Service and the Home Service in the initial period. That is an aspect that must be considered.

Is the Secretary of State aware that this whole exercise has been a total waste of public money? Is he aware of any other country that has a more efficient or effective Diplomatic Service than our own?

No, I am not aware of such a country.

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

The Rhodesian incursion into Mozambique and the security situation within Rhodesia emphasise the urgent need for a negotiated settlement. The United States Government and ourselves remain convinced that our joint proposals provide the basic framework of a settlement. I shall be discussing the situation with the United States Secretary of State later this week.

In view of President Kaunda's statement yesterday and bearing in mind his fear that if elections take place before independence civil strife will result, will my right hon. Friend make urgent efforts to contact President Kaunda, who has a great contribution to make? Will he assure President Kaunda that his apprehensions will be fully considered at any future conferences?

I understand President Kaunda's apprehensions, but I remain absolutely convinced that the only way to settle this dispute between differing nationalist leaders is to have an election. I respect and admire President Kaunda and I much regret that some of my re-remarks have caused ill feeling. That is not reciprocated in any way by me. If he reads my statement he will see that it is a very balanced statement on the issues.

Does the Secretary of State recognise that, regrettably or otherwise, the Anglo-American proposals in the form presented to the different African Governments—white and black—are now in ruins? There is now a breathing space. The question is whether he is to double the stakes on a losing game or stand back and see what progress can be made with the Rhodesian régime and those African leaders who are at present in Rhodesia and whether any agreement that they might reach would or would not be acceptable to this House.

The issues are complex. There is a choice between continuing the arms fight or negotiating a settlement. The principles that have been laid down will be those on which any negotiated settlement must be based. How that is to be achieved is for history to decide. The Anglo-American initiatives are as they are. I do not believe that they can be written off as easily as the right hon. Gentleman implies.

What action is my right hon. Friend considering with the Americans to bring pressure to bear on South Africa? Does he not agree that South Africa remains the key to the Rhodesia problem and that it would be ended in a week if South Africa stopped supporting the régime?

I have never hidden the fact that I believe that South Africa is of great importance, as are the front-line Presidents. South Africa would help us even more than it has done over the last few months if it were convinced that a negotiated settlement would be viable, that there would be fair elections, and that law and order would be maintained. That is an issue on which there are still. regrettably, considerable differences of opinion.

Does the Secretary of State realise that the absolute adherence that he pays to his own initiative can be very counter-productive? Does he further realise that there is every advantage in seeking to bring all those concerned within Rhodesia into negotiations? In all those concerned I include the representatives of the Patriotic Front. Could the Secretary of State not use his influence with them and with President Kaunda to ensure that the genuine initiative that he took with Mr. Smith is the principal vehicle towards a settlement?

I have no amour propre or pride of ownership on this issue. The principles of international acceptance and of fair and free elections are fundamental. I do not believe that this can be achieved if negotiations are narrowed down to involve only the nationalist leaders inside Rhodesia. The Patriotic Front must be involved and negotiations must be set in a climate that the world will accept.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you accept that when the Foreign Secretary, or anyone else, speaks in French he should do so properly?

I am sure that the Secretary of State will be glad to come to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for advice.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his efforts to achieve a settlement in Rhodesia.

I have recently held discussions in London with representatives of Bishop Muzorewa as well as with the Reverend Ndabaningi Sithole. Later this month, I hope to see Mr. Nkomo. We shall continue our efforts to achieve a political settlement. Independence must involve a genuine transfer of power to Government representing the majority of the people following free and fair elections based on universal adult suffrage.

In spite of seeing Mr. Nkomo, does the right hon. Gentleman's franglaisian reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) mean that he is beginning to repent his masochistic obsession with the Patriotic Front? If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to help, will he at least refrain from hindering Mr. Smith and other Rhodesian leaders in seeking a solution from the ballaot box rather than through the barrel of a gun? Is there anything wrong with self-determination for Rhodesia?

The hon. Gentleman's expression "masochistic obsession" typifies the sort of abuse that seems to come out of everyone on this issue. I am pursuing the path of peace, and I will continue to do so, no matter where the criticism comes from. I shall not stand in the way of any initiative from any quarter which contributes to a genuine peace initiative.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there can be no transfer of power or a settlement of the problems of Zimbabwe without the full-hearted co-operation and consent of the Patriotic Front? Does he further accept that unless and until Her Majesty's Government are willing to take action on oil sanctions in order to prevent oil from reaching that country, there is no possibility of any transfer of power by the Smith régime?

As my hon. Friend knows, I have always held the view that the Patriotic Front is a crucial element in any negotiated settlement. It is hard to see any settlement from which it was deliberately excluded being successful. The armed struggle would merely continue. Equally, I make it clear that if there is to be a negotiated settlement there must be compromise. No party to the discussions can hold a total veto over the others if there is to be a peaceful negotiated settlement.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the front-line Presidents that, while they have a legitimate interest in the future of Rhodesia, they cannot expect to have a veto on any settlement that might be acceptable to the black and white communities in Rhodesia?

I have said often in this House that no party in this situation can have a veto if we are to get compromise and a negotiated setttlement. The frontline Presidents are of crucial importance, as South Africa is. They are the parties in the situation who can sustain the continued armed struggle from either side. Therefore, we must take full account of their responsible statesmanship. The front-line Presidents have been of crucial help over the last few months, as, indeed, has South Africa. At the moment, because of differences of opinion, we are a long way from reaching the necessary compromise for a settlement.

When my right hon. Friend sees Mr. Nkomo, will he use his best endeavours to persuade him that the Patriotic Front should commit itself to an election before independence, because that is the best guarantee that it has not only of being able to share in power peacefully in Zimbabwe but also of avoiding civil war?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I shall continue to say what I have said to the Patriotic Front on numerous occasions—that elections hold the key to resolving the issue of who should be president and who should form the Government of the new Zimbabwe. It must be for those who wish to live in a free and independent Zimbabwe to make that choice.

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

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

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

The Government have welcomed President Sadat's bold initiative in visiting Jerusalem. We hope that the meeting summoned by President Sadat in Cairo will carry forward preparations for a peace conference involving all the parties. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I discussed the full range of Middle East problems with Mr. Begin during his recent visit.

Since it is impossible to achieve peace in the Middle East without resolving the Palestinian issue, did the Foreign Secretary obtain from Mr. Begin, during his visit, assurances that he will respond to President Sadat's initiative and make the necessary territorial concessions on the West Bank?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday evening, which referred to some of these issues.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only territorial response from Israel since President Sadat's visit has been the creation of six new settlements on the West Bank? Will Her Majesty's Government use their influence to encourage from Israel a far more constructive approach to the process of peace-making?

I do not think that anyone who followed the progress of the talks that took place on Saturday and Sunday in London between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and Mr. Begin can have any doubt of the constructive contribution that we are attempting to make to a solution of this complex and difficult problem.

As the right hon. Gentleman seems so content with Soviet policy in southern Africa, what has he to say about the fact that the efficient Soviet propaganda machine seems intent on attempting to sabotage President Sadat's courageous and inspiring initiative in the Middle East?

I am not certain that I agree with the preamble to that supplementary question. As far as the Middle East is concerned, I believe that there is advantage in getting back to Geneva. I think that that should still be our objective as part of comprehensive negotiations. I believe that there are advantages in the two co-chairmen playing a responsive and responsible rôle in the negotiations.

While my right hon. Friend is involved in helping towards a settlement of the wider issues in the Middle East, will he give an undertaking that he will not forget—I am sure that he will not want to do so—the bitter problem of Cyprus? What are the prospects of a resumption of the inter-communal talks there?

I share my hon. Friend's concern about that troubled island, but until the presidential election takes place in February it will be difficult to take any new step forward in intercommunal talks. I am studying the issue very closely.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as he himself implied, Mr. Begin has already clearly referred to the Palestinian cause and suggested that there can be negotiations along those lines? Does not that contrast with the deplorable and negative attitude of the other Arab States towards President Sadat's initiative? Will the right hon. Gentleman say something further about that?

I would prefer the Arab world to remain united and to negotiate from a united front. There would be advantage in that. But those who are genuinely seeking peace in the Middle East cannot constantly be held down by the inability of one section to agree. We must surely all work for unity in the moderate Arab approach which has been amply demonstrated in the last few months during the period of the various initiatives taken by the United States Government.

Is it correct that a vast new supply of arms to Egypt from Britain is under consideration? Secondly, in order to protect the fragile peace in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend prevent the supply of all British arms to either side in order to avoid the Middle East becoming a tinder box?

The cardinal principle, which is difficult to apply, in deciding on arms shipments to the Middle East is that one should not, by a particular shipment, upset the balance of power and alter the ratios. The United Kingdom has tried to avoid doing that under successive Governments. I know of no massive shipment of arms, but we have traditionally, for many years, been arms suppliers to Egypt.

May I revert to the speech made by Mr. Begin on Sunday? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Begin's allusion to his preparedness to negotiate with true representatives of the Palestinian Arab people represented a very important statement? As, unfortunately, owing to Mr. Begin's illness, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. White-law) and I were unable to see him yesterday, can the Foreign Secretary tell us anything further as a result of the discussions that he himself had on this very salient issue for the future?

I think that the fact that in his speech Mr. Begin made reference to the Palestinian Arabs owes a lot to the discussions that took place between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and him. It was, of course, on that issue that a lot of the discussion was bound to concentrate. The fact that Mr. Begin came out of the meetings and made his statement is testimony to the progress made during the discussions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what conveniently available figures he has for the number of officials of his Department born in Scotland.

Officials employed by my right hon. Friend's Department are drawn from every region. But in selecting them we are not influenced by their places of birth, provided they meet the usual nationality requirements. Figures showing how many were born in Scotland are not available except at disproportionate cost.

My hon. Friend will acquit me of asking for things at disproportionate cost, since my Question asks for "conveniently available figures". Will the Government reflect, over the coming months, on whether they might not produce an objective study of the costs and other ramifications of devolution and the effects on the British Diplomatic Service—in particular, the costs of representation of a separate Scottish State in the Nine and elsewhere, not excluding the costs of a Scottish embassy or high commission here in London?

As a former member of the Diplomatic Service, I assure my hon. Friend that there is no shortage of Scottish people at every level. They are present in alarming numbers already. I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be a total disaster for the United Kingdom and, indeed, for Scotland to break up the Diplomatic Service. I am convinced that the great majority of the Scottish people realise that they have far more influence by Scots being able to occupy important positions within the United Kingdom Diplomatic Service than if there were an independent Scotland.

We welcome the Minister's information that there will be enough members of the Civil Service of Scottish origin to occupy the Scottish Foreign Office within the next few years. Will the Minister assure his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that, despite all his efforts, there is no possibility of his being appointed our first High Commissioner in London?

I do not think that anybody in the House has ever doubted the availability of gifted Scottish people, but what many of us believe is that they are better devoted to helping the United Kingdom Government to pursue the interests of Scotland as well as of England than they are in trying to represent an independent Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet his colleagues in the other member States of the EEC to discuss the development of political co-operation.

The next political co-operation ministerial meeting is to be held in Copenhagen, under the Danish Presidency. on 13th and 14th February 1978.

In the context of the overall development of political co-operation, was the Foreign Secretary upset that the French Government apparently prevented the issuance of the united statement on the Middle East at the time of President Sadat's visit to Israel?

The President of the Council tried to get a Presidency statement on the Saturday, I think it was, but it proved impossible to achieve unanimity. But we, in fact, agreed a statement which was helpful when the Council of Foreign Ministers met on the Tuesday following. I was very happy to have a statement on the Saturday and equally happy to have one on the Tuesday.

When my right hon. Friend meets his colleagues in the Common Market, will he also tell them that the hon. Gentleman who tabled this Question about political co-operation in Europe—the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)—was the same man who was acting as a go-between between the Common Market Commission and the Tory Party Central Office in an attempt to undermine Britain's oil revenues? Will he tell his colleagues that we are not having any of that?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to point out two things. First, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not indicate to me in advance that he would be raising this matter. Secondly, and even more important, the Secretary of State for Energy made a totally false allegation, which I hope he will withdraw, on something that he has misconstrued, and he has not yet apologised for it.

I will only say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that before I go to the next political co-operation meeting I shall try to improve my French.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise in the Council of Ministers the future adequacy of co-ordination between the European Parliament and the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

The question of the relationship between the European Assembly and this Parliament is primarily a matter for the two institutions themselves, which both may wish to reconsider after direct elections. I doubt whether the Council of Ministers can assist at this stage. The British Government have made plain in this House and elsewhere their position on the powers of the European Assembly.

Does the Minister agree that his answer adds up to the fact that nobody knows so far how co-ordination will work? What leads him to think that the European Members of Parliament will be the exception to the general rule that capable and ambitious people tend to seek to maximise their power and influence?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we debated this very point at some length the other night. I remain convinced, together with colleagues, that the main accountability of the European Assembly will be through Ministers to this House, and this House will, therefore, continue to attract maximum talent.

Is not the position quite clear? Does not my hon. Friend agree with the statement of the former Commissioner, now Lord Thomson, in the Lloyds Bank Review last July, when he said that from the moment of direct elections the new European Assemblymen will cease to be colleagues of Members of this House and, instead, become rivals? Is not that clear and is it not also clear that this House and this Parliament have no part in the written constitution under the Treaty of Rome?

But I am sure that my hon. Friend will also agree that, as we discussed the other night at some length and on other occasions, the functions of the European Assembly are in no way to be compared with the legislative functions of the House. I do not believe that the sort of person who is interested in a legislative role will be attracted to the European Assembly in the same way as people will continue to be attracted to this House.

Can we once and for all rule out the dotty suggestion that Members of the directly elected European Assembly, if any, should be Members of the House of Lords?

We are to discuss later, in the context of the Bill now before the House, what methods of election are to be used. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will put his views forward very forcefully then, and they will be dealt with by the Government.

If my hon. Friend thinks that the main avenue of accountability would be through the Council of Ministers to this House, what is the point of direct elections?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that on many occasions many of us in the House have said that, wherever public bodies exist, it is better that the people who belong to them should be elected rather than that they should be appointed indirectly.

Developing that point, may ask whether The Times was accurate this morning in its account of what the Foreign Secretary said at the Summit Conference about the direct elections Bill? If it was accurate, was this not a very deeply partisan and misleading statement? Would it not be better to correct it now by acknowledging that in recent weeks, and again this week, the obstacle to progress with the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the electoral system but is simply the continuing refusal by the Government to provide adequate days for discussion?

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not so. He knows very well that if the House decides to opt for the regional list system there is every reason to believe that the date that has been set as the target will be met.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the President of the EEC Commission.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet Mr. Jenkins, the President of the EEC Commission, at the Council of Ministers meeting on 19th and 20th December.

As Mr. Jenkins' colleague, Industry Commissioner Davignon, has said that there should be no cutback in the steel industry in the EEC, why are the Government decimating the steel industry in Scotland?

The Government are faced, as are all Governments with steel industries in the countries for which they are responsible, with a major international steel crisis. In tackling that crisis, the present Government have very high in their order of priorities the protection of the interests of individuals and communities that are dependent on the industry.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the President, will he advise him of standard Civil Service practice, namely, not to criticise the Ministers of the component Governments, not to take part in controversial public debate, and to remember that the members of the Commission are the servants and not the bosses of the EEC?

I think that it is well understood that the present Government believe very deeply that the main political responsibility for the life of the Community lies with Governments and the politicians within those Governments.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the President of the Commission, will he inquire from him what rôle the Commission sees for itself in making available European funds for fighting the Strasbourg elections, and will he ensure that this House is fully apprised of the Commission's views on how that money is to be allocated?

Obviously the management of elections is an important and sensitive issue. We shall want to be very satisfied, just as we would in the context of elections in our own country, that this has been handled with all appropriate propriety and that no arrangements are being made about which any of us, on either side of the House, would be unhappy or suspicious.

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

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Prime Minister's letter to the General Secretary of the Labour Party, published in the Official Report on 22nd November.

While being basically in favour of enlargement, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the percentage of workers in agriculture in the countries that one hopes will join is 36 per cent. in Greece, 28 per cent. in Portugal and 23 per cent. in Spain? As compared with the British percentage of only 3 per cent. of workers in agriculture, will not that really heavily tip the advantage in favour of the vested interests in agriculture in the Common Market to the detriment of the United Kingdom?

It certainly would if one were to follow into Mediterranean agricultural products the same policy that exists predominantly for northern agricultural products. Therefore, it is the British Government's strong intention to resist any such increase, which could shift the agricultural budget from its present 70 per cent. of overall Community budget up to over 90 per cent.

As 70 per cent. of the budget is already going to agriculture, does my right hon. Friend agree that we shall have to abandon the CAP before we consider bringing in countries such as Greece, Spain or Portugal?

There is not quite such a well developed CAP for Mediterranean products. I do not believe that we can exclude doing something about Mediterranean agricultural products, but the price of doing so must be one of making changes in the rest of the CAP. That is why we attach such great importance to radical changes.

What link, if any, does the right hon. Gentleman see between early settlement of the Cyprus dispute and the proposed enlargement of the Community?

Not very much. I do not think that the Cyprus dispute is in any way connected with the EEC. Good relations with some countries, such as Greece, which is an applicant to join, are important, but I do not think that anything can replace a better dialogue between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm the considerable political advantages of enlargement, particularly by strengthening democracy in southern Europe?

Yes, Sir. I think that that is one of the central objectives and why one is prepared to pay a limited but reasonable economic price for enlargement. That price is to be carefully calculated, but the whole concept of the European Community is above all political.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in explaining to the other member States of the EEC the propositions for reform set out in the Prime Minister's letter to the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.

Copies were sent out to our eight partners in the Community and the issues raised have been discussed on frequent occasions since then.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to avert misunderstandings, both here and in the EEC, about our seriousness of purpose in achieving these reforms, it is important that we should put forward specific proposals as quickly as possible? When might we expect that to happen?

The most important thing is that we should negotiate against the background of firm, well-worked-out policies. Changing the common agricultural policy will not be done overnight, but one needs to know where one is aiming to be in three or four years' time if one is to achieve sensible reforms in the day-to-day negotiations that go on throughout the Community. We are fundamentally in negotiations the whole time in doing Community business.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make plain to all the Ministers in the EEC that the British Government are wholly opposed to any progress towards economic and monetary union and that, indeed, economic and monetary union in the EEC is wholly inconsistent with control by the British people of their own economic affairs?

That is too simple a presentation of a very complex problem. There is no doubt that the divergence of the economies of the Community of the Nine is not in the interests of Britain or of the whole Community and that ways of achieving, sensibly and step by step, over time, a greater convergence of the economies of the Community, is a thoroughly beneficial policy, which we shall support.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the ways in which the reforms outlined in the Prime Minister's letter may be pushed through the Community much more rapidly is to have the closest possible contact with other Socialist and Social Democratic Parties in Europe? Will he press the Labour Party International Committee and the National Executive to work in the closest possible way with sister parties in Europe to achieve those ends?

I certainly believe that political relations across countries are a very important force which can be harnessed to the good of national interests as well as the political beliefs of the various parties. The Socialist grouping in the European Community and the European Assembly is very strong—in fact, the majority grouping. Therefore, I would welcome these changes.

Will the proposals for reform include a proposal for reform of the common fisheries policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to our Danish partners that unless they stop forthwith their wasteful industrial fishing methods there will be no fish stocks left for any of the partners in the EEC?

My right hon. Friends the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been battling for reform of the common fisheries policy for some months. That preceded the Prime Minister's letter. It is a central plank of our policy that we wish to have reforms in the common fisheries policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with the President of the EEC Commission what actions need to be taken by member States to further common policies of the Community.

My right hon. Friend already has frequent occasions to discuss Community policies with Mr. Roy Jenkins; for example at EEC Council meetings when the development of specific common Community policies is under review.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House why, when the British Parliament sits for longer than any other Community Parliament, we find it impossible to find time to debate major common Community issues, such as the aerospace policy for the Common Market, which has been outstanding for debate in this country for more than two years?

There arc, of course, big problems of time in this House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, as was brought out in debate the other night, the Government are looking seriously and urgently at the whole issue of improving the method of scrutiny to make sure that hon. Members throughout the House have an opportunity to monitor in more detail what is going on in the Community.

Is it the Government's general intention that the members of the EEC should keep in step in regard to a common foreign policy? When will the Government come into step with the West German Government, which recently decided not to provide export credit guarantees for companies which trade with South Africa?

Political co-operation is a very important part of the life of the Community. Naturally, on crucial issues facing us all it is better to achieve more progress working together than to posture independently as individual countries and fail to achieve effective common action. There are many ideas to be exchanged. As my right hon. Friend has already indicated this afternoon, in southern African policy we are constantly updating the appropriate action that we can take together.

Will the hon. Gentleman bring home to the EEC that the common agricultural policy is quantitatively so large a part of the totality of common policies that it cannot be based on the distortions inherent in an artificial rate of the green pound?

One of the matters which give me a great deal of anxiety is that if the credibility of the financing of the Community is to be maintained we must look very seriously at the proportion of the budget taken up by the common agricultural policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with relevant EEC bodies about the proposed timetable for direct elections to the European Parliament.

The Council of Ministers has reviewed the progress of legislation in the member States but there has been no discussion of any change in the proposed timetable. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will refer in his statement to discussions at the European Council on 5th and 6th December.

Will the Minister make clear that he will try to come up with a valid reason for the slippage appearing in the United Kingdom timetable, and will he say whether he has told our European partners that he has said that this is due to internal Labour Party disputes or opposition by both the Labour Government and the Tory Opposition to the concept of proportional representation?

As I have already said in answer to a previous question, whether we meet the target date is very much in the hands of every hon. Member. If there is a decision to accept the Government's recommendation of a regional list system, there is no reason why we should not meet the target date next summer.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no real internal Labour Party dispute on the question of direct elections? The Labour Party, as such, is opposed to direct elections. There may well be people in the House who support them, but that is not the party in the country. Is my hon. Friend also aware that the National Executive of the party and its so-called International Committee have not accepted the manifesto from our European partners, because it is federalist in concept? As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs indicated that he was opposed to federalism, I should like to know where we stand.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to have to listen to an internal Labour Party dispute throughout the afternoon?

It is always interesting.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that we are well aware of the position of the Labour Party and its National Executive. On the federal point, not only my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State but my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it plain that we are not committed to the concept of a federal Europe.

On the basis of the last question, does the Minister agree that there are one or two other problems standing in the way of rapid progress towards free elections in Europe, other than the method of election? Are we not now the odd man out in being the only country that has not completed the necessary legislative process to hold the elections next year?

We are not the only odd man out; I still maintain that the method of election has a great deal to do with whether we meet the target date.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the people of this country are not all that passionately interested in direct elections or anything to do with them? Is he further aware that they are gravely disappointed that many of the things promised at the time of the referendum have not come true, that they were cheated, and that it would be to the benefit of the Commission if it concentrated on trying to reduce European unemployment instead of messing about with ideas of federalism or any form of direct elections?

I certainly endorse the point inherent in my hon. Friend's question, which is that in the final analysis the way in which the Community will be judged will not be by theological discussions about institutions and structures but by the policies which do or do not come out of it in the interests of the ordinary men, women and children who make up the member countries of the Community.