asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the Irish Foreign Minister.

My right hon. Friend last met the Irish Foreign Minister at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 17th January.

Will the Minister say what representations were made to the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland about the recent remarks by Mr. Lynch about a demand for a British intent to withdraw from Northern Ireland? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that such remarks were an unacceptable intrusion into the domestic affairs of the United Kingdom? Does he also agree that the future of Northern Ireland is a matter not for negotiation between Dublin and London but for the express wishes of the majority of the people in Ulster?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has made the Government's policy in Northern Ireland quite clear on a number of occasions, and most recently in the House on 12th January, when he underlined that the Government are looking for a partnership administration reflecting the interests of both communities in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made the same point to the Taoiseach at their meeting last September. I refer hon. Members to the Prime Minister's answer on 17th January, when he said that the people of Northern Ireland will remain in the United Kingdom as long as it is their desire to do so.

When the Secretary of State met the Eire Foreign Minister, did he emphasise that the continuing failure of the Eire Government to sign the European extradition agreement gives comfort to the terrorists who have fled from Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic after committing atrocities in the Province?

The Government have made clear that they regard extradition as the most effective means of dealing with fugitive terrorists. Our views are well known to the Irish Government.

Is the Minister in a position to tell us what support the United Kingdom has had from Ireland on renegotiating the common fisheries policy?

It is true to say that there is a great deal of common interest between the position of the Republic of Ireland and ourselves on that issue, and we endeavour to work closely together.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is aware that Anatoly Shcharansky, a Russian Jew, has been imprisoned in Moscow without trial since March 1977, that he has been forbidden legal representation unless he pleads guilty to a pending charge of treason which carries the death penalty, and that he is no longer allowed visitors or to receive or send letters; and what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to draw the attention of the Soviet Government and the Belgrade Conference to the denial of human rights in this case.

I am following this case closely. The Government will continue to ensure that the Soviet authorities are in no doubt about the widespread concern felt in this country over Mr. Shcharansky and other human rights cases, and about the implications of the case for the Belgrade meeting and the whole process of detente.

May I say that I share that concern? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Russian Government that their inhuman and uncivilised treatment of this man damages their reputation? Will the right hon. Gentleman ask that Shcharansky be immediately released, bearing in mind that the Russians have kept him in custody incommunicado for nearly a year while they make up their minds, or, rather, fail to do so?

I think that the sentiments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are shared by many in the House. On a number of occasions, and some quite recently, I have taken the opportunity privately to make clear to the Soviet authorities that there is very strong public feeling in this country. Although we have no direct status in the sense that some of these people do not have direct links with the British people and the British Government, we have our responsibilities as international citizens, which affects our relations with the Soviet Union.

As the Foreign Secretary's commitment to civil rights is not an issue in the House, does he agree that the fact that Mr. Shcharansky has been held incommunicado for nearly a year, without his mother being able to see him, still less his legal advisers, will make hollow any subsequent agreement at Belgrade on human rights with the Russians unless they show some definite movement in this regard?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to dissociate the overhang effect of some of these cases from what might be said in Belgrade. Many of us have this anxiety. One might make a forthcoming statement at Belgrade hoping for changes in future years, only to see, a few weeks or months later, those hopes suddenly and cruelly dashed. That would breed cynicism among the public about the whole process of détente. That is a matter that the Soviet authorities should consider.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that over 300 Members, including you, Mr. Speaker, together with the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Canterbury, have now signed a Bible as a token of the concern of the House about the fate of Anatoly Shcharansky? What protest has he made at the refusal of the Soviet Ambassador in Belgrade to receive this Bible from the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) and myself and, indeed, at the cancellation of an appointment that he made with us at his convenience? Does he not think that the time has come for some very plain speaking on behalf of the House of Commons in this matter?

Naturally, I regret that an appointment that had been made was not kept. We must keep these issues in perspective. The process of détente involves more than just human rights. Of course, human rights are an extremely important element in it. I do not want to undermine or dissociate myself from the strong commitment to human rights. There are other issues to be discussed in the process of détente—the whole question of disarmament and the threat to peace of nuclear arms escalating. In forming a judgment on these issues, we have to see the process of détente as a whole.

I fully understand the Foreign Secretary's statement about the broad area covered by détente. Has he made it clear to the Soviet Union that any final communiqué jointly agreed at Belgrade cannot reasonably fail to make some reference to the concern and agony that are felt about this matter unless something is done about Anatoly Shcharansky and his like?

I note and share the right hon. Gentleman's view. That is a factor to be borne in mind. We cannot take too rigid a line until we determine the kind of framework in which we shall discuss this matter. Many people feel that those who monitor the process at Helsinki in any of the member States that signed the Final Act should not suffer for their monitoring.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the other member States of NATO to refrain from increasing their expenditure on armaments, in the interests of not prejudicing the outcome of the Special United Nations Session on Disarmament due to take place in May of this year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of his declaration that Great Britain will play a positive rôle at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in May, he will seek to ensure that no steps will be taken meanwhile to prejudice the success of that conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in his consultations with NATO, he will seek to ensure that the organisation should refrain from pressing for increased arms expenditure by its member Governments pending the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

We and our allies intend to play a positive rôle in the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament. There is no question of any moves which might prejudice the prospects for the session. Until our objective of general and complete disarmament can be achieved, we and our allies must maintain the military expenditure necessary to ensure our security.

Does the Minister agree, however, that the recent announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of real increases in armaments expenditure runs counter to the no doubt sincere hope by the Foreign Office that it can play a positive rôle in the coming United Nations discussions on disarmament? It seems to many hon. Members to make it difficult, if not impossible, for the British Government to exercise any moral authority at all on anyone, particularly in NATO, in this respect. Therefore, does he agree that it would render the United Nations talks nugatory from the start?

There is no contradiction in the two facts mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he knows, we undertook a drastic defence review and cut defence spending by over £8 billion or £9 billion over a nine-year period. Now that our financial situation is somewhat restored, in conjunction with our allies and in accordance with the NATO decision, we have decided to raise defence expenditure by 3 per cent. over coming years. There is no conflict between doing that and taking a positive rôle at the conference, to which we attach great importance. We have our own ideas to present to the conference. I hope that we can play a positive part.

First, does my hon. Friend feel that an increase in arms spending by East or West inevitably heightens tension and makes peace and arms reductions this year harder to achieve?

I agree that all increases in defence expenditure can have the effect of raising tension. But we must be concerned about the balance of armaments between East and West. Unfortunately, increases in defence expenditure on the Eastern side on a fairly substantial scale have been reported, and NATO must take account of them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, with the problems of world poverty, we need a United Nations initiative to bring about an end to the arms race in order to divert resources to help the needy in the Southern Hemisphere?

As I said in my original answer, our aim is eventual "general and complete disarmament." One of the main effects, to which the United Nations has often drawn attention, would be that enormous resources would be available for development all over the world.

What did the Under-Secretary mean by the expression "complete disarmament" in his substantive reply?

The ultimate aim, as I said, is the elimination of all armaments. This is a long-term eventual aim. I do not suggest that it is easy, but it is a matter to which the discussions at the conference will be directed.

Does the Minister agree that a posture of weakness on the part of the West is as likely to cause increasing tension as a posture of strength? To what extent is increased arms expenditure by this country designed to meet the increased threat to our communications posed by the disposition of hostile Soviet submarines?

Our aim is to assure for the West a position neither of superior strength nor of weakness. Our aim should be to secure a balance of armaments between East and West. We shall not be successful in the talks unless we make that clear before the negotiations take place.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the United Nations Charter would be at risk unless NATO defined its attitude towards the neutron weapon? Does he further agree that the United Kingdom should press for a mutual denunciation of this ghastly weapon?

I understand that no final decisions have been taken about that weapon. We are in close consultation with all the Powers involved.

We all hope for a major advance at the United Nations special session. Is the Minister aware that it is suggested that there is to be a major exhibition at Aldershot designed to promote the sale of British arms to all and sundry? Is it correct that that exhibition will correspond with the last week of the United Nations special session? Is that by design or by accident?

It is an exhibition of all types of Army equipment, including weapons, for an invited audience of defence procurement officials from a wide range of customer States. The last such exhibition took place in the summer of 1976. I am sure that the timing is a matter of accident.

Is it not irrelevant hypocrisy on the part of the Minister's hon. Friends below the Gangway to complain of the Government's modest and belated decision to make a small increase in defence expenditure at a time when the armaments industry of the Soviet Union is out-producing Britain's entire inventory of tanks, aircraft and submarines every four months?

I have already said that the level of defence expenditure in other parts of Europe must be of concern to us in making our own decisions on defence expenditure. What is of concern is the relationship not of Soviet expenditure to our own but of Soviet and East European expenditure to that of the West as a whole.

Although it is hoped that real progress will be made at the United Nations and that the British team will be strongly represented, is it not clear that the lessons of history demonstrate that if genuine progress is to be made it must be on the basis of balanced arms reductions? Is it not therefore imperative that NATO members negotiate from a position of adequate strength?

That is what the Russians say.

It is our aim to secure a balance at the time when the conference takes place. At the conference we shall also wish to secure substantial reductions, which, of course, must be of a balanced nature.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent information he has on the position of British hotels in the North of Cyprus pending a settlement between the Turkish authorities and the British owners.

In commercial cases such as this, the British High Commission in Nicosia forwards claims, and makes representations, whenever requested to do so by British holders of rights in an undertaking. It will, of course, continue to do this. But these cases need to be considered individually and some companies prefer to deal direct with the Turkish Cypriots.

Does the Minister appreciate that prior to the forthcoming ruling of the House of Lords and/or a settlement of the Cyprus problem British hotel owners, travellers and tourists are in a difficult position? Can he assure the House that the Government accept that they have a responsibility to give regular information to those most concerned and to protect British interests?

I assure the House that we shall always do our best to answer any queries from whatever quarter. Consular services are available to all three in Cyprus from whatever part of the island they come.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the possession of British hotels in Cyprus—I am referring in particular to New Famagusta—is intimately linked to a political settlement'? Does he further agree that it is not enough for hotel keepers to settle the problem themselves because without a moving back of the Greek citizens to New Famagusta there will be no political settlement?

My hon. Friend is right. This can be seen as a symptom of the underlying political problem. We are determined to do everything we can to support those who are seeking a political solution.

When he considers the aspect of British property in Cyprus, will the Minister realise that many house owners who have homes in the north of the island have had their houses pillaged and are not allowed to go to the island to see the situation for themselves? Does he agree that it is not enough to approach the authorities individually unless his Department takes action to support individual property owners?

I am glad to be able to assure the hon. Member and the House that a senior official visited Cyprus last month to have further discussions with the Turkish Cypriot authorities. He was told that a claims commission would be set up towards the end of the month. The chairman has already been named and members will be appointed shortly. The High Commissioner is pursuing the matter vigorously.

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

The Government, with the full support of the United States Government, are continuing to work for a Rhodesian settlement which will be acceptable to the international community and contribute to peace and prosperity in an independent Zimbabwe.

Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much longer he will use his continued bad offices to try to prevent a settlement between Mr. Smith and the moderates of Rhodesia? How much longer does he propose to prefer the company of murderers to that of moderates?

The hon. Member must accept that an internal settlement which excludes one of the leading nationalist groups cannot bring about a ceasefire during the elections or bring peace and stability to a newly independent Zimbabwe, nor would it eliminate the threat to international peace and security. It would, therefore, be most unlikely to be recognised by the Security Council. We are signatories to many Security Council resolutions.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the full support of hon. Members on this side of the House in his determination to continue talks with Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo? Will he confirm that it would be ludicrous to have any kind of paper settlement that did not involve the full co-operation of the Patriotic Front, whose forces have forced Smith to the conference table?

I have been almost brutally frank with the House about the limitations on the Government's rôle in this matter. I do not delude myself that we can have absolute power. All I can say is that I believe that we must pursue a ceasefire as being the stable way of ensuring an independent Zimbabwe. We have offered, within the framework of the Anglo-American proposals, to administer Rhodesia during a transitional period. We have never administered that territory and it would not be right to administer it unless there were a reasonable guarantee of a ceasefire and a peaceful period during which elections would be held.

Do the Six Principles still apply? Have they been modified?

We still stand by the basic principles, but they are much more detailed in the Anglo-American proposals. I hope that we shall be able to elaborate them as I promised following the run of consultations. No one is under any illusion that to negotiate a ceasefire between two forces, neither of which has won or lost, is extremely difficult. This has eluded people in the past. It is right for the British and American Governments to try to achieve that objective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nostalgia for the old imperialism that lingers on the Opposition Benches is of no help? Does he agree that certain so-called terrorists such as Nehru, Gandhi and Kenyatta have eventually become world statesmen? Does my right hon. Friend accept that no solution to the Rhodesian problem is possible that does not take into account the aspirations of the Patriotic Front?

I agree with my hon. Friend.

What, Nehru a terrorist?

I think that in the past when many people opposed the granting of independence under the British Parliament many people ended up in prison. The mere fact that they were imprisoned by a British Government does not necessarily mean that they were terrorists.

Is the Secretary of State aware that in the last 24 hours the internal settlement talks in Salisbury have made somewhat dramatic progress? Will he explain to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe when he meets them in Malta that if there is an internal settlement which is consonant with the Six Principles it would be extremely difficult for the British Government not to recognise the Rhodesian Government which emerged from such a settlement? Does the Secretary of State agree that he would be deluding the leaders of the Patriotic Front if he did not make that clear to them?

I agree that we should try to talk about principles. The Government and this House alone can confer legal independence on Rhodesia. We would not do so if a settlement did not accord with the basic principles in the Anglo-American proposals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the creation of some kind of Bantustan under the aegis of Mr. Smith would not be acceptable to the House, the OAU, the Commonwealth or the United Nations? Does he accept that the only thing that matters is free elections under the auspices of the United Nations?

It is necessary for the United Nations to have a crucial rôle in this settlement. It is necessary for it to have both a military peacekeeping réle and a supervisory and observation role to ensure fair elections. Any administration by a British resident Commissioner must be seen to be fair. We cannot ignore the whole weight of international opinion—the Security Council, the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the Organisation of African Unity.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that for more than a year now I have sought to sustain his efforts to find a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, in spite of some very wide criticism? I am bound to tell him now, and I hope that he will accept, that I fear—and I hope that he will be able to say that it is not so—that the behaviour of Her Majesty's Government does not do honour to us in relation to the efforts currently being made in Rhodesia to find a settlement. Does he understand that, however important the external influences may be, however important the carrying of the United Nations may be, the matter of prime importance is that we here should by every means seek to bring about a peaceful settlement in that country? If there is such a prospect from the discussions now currently in hand in Salisbury, it would be madness indeed for any Government to seek to frustrate them.

I will certainly not and nor will the Government frustrate a peaceful settlement there, from whatever source it comes. I believe that we in this House have a responsibility to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, and I have never deviated from that. Since I decided that it was not incumbent upon me to ignore the problem of Rhodesia, and that it was necessary for me to strive for a peaceful settlement, I have been attacked on many sides and by many different people. It goes on day after day. I will not seek—and here I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—as he has not sought, to make this a party political issue in the House. I will seek the maximum degree of consensus possible, but not at the risk of departing from the principles laid down in the Anglo-United States initiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest position in the negotiations he is conducting with the Malaysian Government on the question of Concorde's overflying rights of the Malacca Strait on its flight-path to Singapore.

I am happy to be able to tell the hon. Member that talks with the Malaysian Government resumed today in Kuala Lumpur.

Is the Minister aware that the Deputy High Commissioner of Malaysia told me that his Government's attitude was shaped by concern for the unknown effect on fish in the Malacca Strait of Concorde flying overhead? However, most people with any knowledge of the problem believe that it is based upon the splitting of the former Malaysia-Singapore Airlines into two airlines and the determination of the Malaysian Government to prevent Singapore International Airlines from being successful. Will he say what he is prepared to do if the Malaysian Government do not reach a reasonable agreement within a reasonable time?

It is true that the Malaysian Government say that they are principally concerned on environmental and air traffic control grounds. We believe that their action is illegal, and we are making that point plain. But we are certain that in the context of the resumed negotiations a satisfactory solution will be found.

Does the Minister think that it would have been a wiser course to have secured agreement with the Malaysian authorities about these rights before rather than after screwing them down to an agreement on air traffic between London and Malaysia which the Malaysians felt was very unfair to their airline?

If the hon. Gentleman's account of history was correct, he would be right in his judgment. But what happened was that contacts were started at official level with the Malaysian Government in January last year. We gave them route proposals last March and again in October. The Malaysian officials did not indicate at any time that this would cause any difficulty for their Government.

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

My right hon. Friend hopes to see Mr. Sonoda soon, but at the moment there are no definite plans for them to meet. However, the Japanese Minister for External Economic Affairs, Mr. Ushiba, is coming to London on 26th and 27th January and will be meeting a number of Ministers.

When Ministers meet Mr. Ushiba, will they express to him the interests of Her Majesty's Government in the unfolding of Japan's avowed plans to increase development assistance? Will they urge upon him Britain's desire that extra aid from Japan, when it is announced, should go where it is most needed, namely, to the countries of South Asia—India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

We welcome Japan's undertaking to double its aid within the next five years. We would welcome, too, any further acceleration of that programme, and we would like to see it spread more widely, with some of it going to multilateral institutions.

When the Minister has discussions with the Japanese Government, will he advance the opinion that Japan, with its great power, should play a large rôle in maintaining the naval security of the Eastern Pacific and the Indian Ocean, and also discuss the possibility of joint Anglo-Japanese ventures in the great nation of China?

That would be a matter for the Foreign Ministers' meeting rather than for the Minister of External Economic Affairs. The hon. Gentleman knows the constraints on Japan expanding its defence expenditure. They lie partly in public opinion and partly in its constitution. The other matter that the hon. Member mentioned is an interesting idea that no doubt could be discussed with the Japanese Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to El Salvador during 1978.

No, Sir.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Government's recent decision not to go ahead with the sale of armaments to El Salvador is most welcome to people in this country and overseas who are deeply concerned about the peace and freedom of that area?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the difficulty which arises over the supply of that equipment and the fact that the Government had to seek assurances that it would not be used against neighbouring Belize would never have arisen if consideration had been given at the outset to the wisdom of supplying equipment to any Government who oppressed their own people? Has the lesson now been learned, and in future will British arms not be supplied to regimes that deny fundamental human rights to their own populations?

There are a few administrative lessons to be learned.

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

There is no change in our relations.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the Government's decision to cancel the arms deal with El Salvador? Will he now press the United States and other Powers not to supply arms to Guatemala or any of its allies until that country recognises the territorial integrity of Belize? Will he make a statement here and now that no undue pressure will be brought to bear on the Premier of Belize to sacrifice part of his territory to meet the demands of Guatemala before a settlement can be arrived at?

There is another Question on the Order Paper to which I hope to reply. No pressure has been or will be applied. The Government have made it clear to many Governments that we deplore the supply of arms to Guatemala in a situation in which we are faced with the current territorial dispute between Belize and Guatemala.

I undertand that Questions Nos. 23 and 26 will be answered after Question Time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration he has given to stopping flights between the United Kingdom and Uganda from Stansted airport.

The question of the Stansted flights is under active consideration. The Government will soon be in a position to announce their decision.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is a degree of urgency about our receiving an answer on this? At the time of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference, when Uganda was occupying more attention than at present, certain promises or hints of promises were given that this Stansted run, which is totally unnecessary, would be stopped. We look forward to urgent action.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's points, but a number of very complex issues related to our international obligations and our domestic law are involved here. The Government are seeking advice on them and we hope to make an announcement soon.

Is it not true that every time we drink Nescafé or Maxwell House coffee we are helping to underpin the régime in Uganda, the coffee sales of which are being remarkably successful? In these circumstances, is there not an argument for the Government to turn their attention possibly to some sort of economic sanctions if we are ever to undermine Amin's régime?

I think that it would be a very serious course to embark upon full-scale trade sanctions which would conflict with our own domestic interests—Rhodesia is a very special case—but, also, it would conflict with our commitment to Lomé in EEC terms.

It is quite clear that these regular airways flights from Stansted to Uganda are helping to sustain the tyrannical Ugandan régime by the provision of luxury goods rather than helping the people of Uganda. Is it not time that the Government stopped prevaricating? Will the Minister explain what the obstacles are?

The obstacles are fundamental legal ones about international obligations—things like the Chicago Convention and many other provisions internationally—which make it difficult for us to terminate these flights. However, we have been investigating the possibilities and we hope to make an announcement soon. We appreciate and share the strength of feeling in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the next Council of Ministers' meeting the issue of the vetting of EEC Commission officials for security.

My hon. Friend has corresponded with both my right hon. Friend and myself about this matter. It is essentially one for the Commission and I do not think that it would be appropriate for my right hon. Friend to raise it now in the Council of Ministers.

Are the views of certain EEC officials about vetting reconcilable with the management of Euratom?

As my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) himself said during a debate in the European Assembly, there is a certain irreducible dilemma between the problem of confidentiality and the need to ensure that the careers of Community officials are not prejudiced. I note what my hon. Friend says about Euratom. I re-emphasise the basic message of our recent correspondence that this important subject is more appropriate for consideration by the Commission than by the Council of Ministers.

Will the Minister say whether the appointment of Mr. Spinelli as a Commissioner, who is a member of the Communist Party and who had left the Commission to fight the Italian elections as a Communist candidate, was subject to vetting?

The answer is "No." I cannot tell the hon. Member one way or the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the main subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

A monthly written forecast of Council business will be deposited tomorow and my hon. Friend the Minister of State expects to make his oral statement on 30th January.

Will my right hon. Friend expect to raise at the meeting of the Council of Ministers the question of Greek entry into the Community? Will he make a comment on the likelihood of that being finally agreed and sorted out by October, as Mr. Karamanlis expressed the hope in this morning's newspapers?

I shall be talking to Mr. Karamanlis this afternoon with the Prime Minister. I will be interested to hear his views. All of us support the principle of enlargement. For political, in particular, as well as economic reasons, we want to buttress the new democracies that are currently applying, which have been through a difficult period.

Bearing in mind that President Sadat's initiative does not appear to be achieving the success it deserves, will the Foreign Secretary discuss with his EEC colleagues the possibility of the Community playing a more active rôle in the Middle East than it has been doing in the last month or two?

It has always been discussed on every occasion when Community Foreign Ministers meet together, and the last Council meeting was no exception. It is often discussed privately. It is unwise to jump to the conclusion that the European member States, in their own different ways, are not having a quite important influence on the situation. But I do not think that it calls for public statements from the Community at present.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the prospect of enlarging the EEC when it comes to the question of fixing a new date for direct elections? Does he agree that it would be perverse to hold direct elections a few months before the accession of the Greeks, who would no doubt wish to participate?

I am at one with my hon. Friend in believing that all relevant factors should be taken into account in considering the date for direct elections to the European Parliament.

Following on the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), can the Foreign Secretary shed light on the way the Community will decide the date for direct elections? Will it be the European Council, or will the Council of Ministers have a go first? Will he confirm the Press report that the Prime Minister said that he will not agree to any date for European elections in advance of our own General Election because he fears that the Labour Party might not do too well in it?

I cannot confirm the last statement. I should have thought that the opinion polls showed that that would be a most ill-advised statement to make.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be meeting the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

At the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.

Does the Foreign Secretary feel that it would be helpful to the Minister of Agriculture, who is going to Berlin on Friday to discuss other matters on the common fisheries policy, to make it clear to the Council of Ministers that he will raise a veto to prevent any enlargement of the Community until we have a satisfactory resolution of the common fisheries policy?

My right hon. Friend is going to a "green week", which is held there. I do not think that it is wise to assume that substantive discussions of the kind that the hon. Gentleman indicates necessarily will take place. But I think that the whole House has made clear its concern that we should have a fair and reasonable agreement over fishing.

Did my right hon. Friend notice that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) never mentioned Scotland in his supplementary question? He must be slipping. Will the Minister confirm that, with unemployment spiralling throughout Western Europe, the loss of production since we have been a member of the Common Market has been about half the national income of all the developing countries?

My hon. Friend is in danger of becoming the very mirror of the Euro-theologians, whom he attacks so frequently, in Brussels. The sooner he realises that the Treaty of Rome is not an absolute and binding framework within which the European Community develops and evolves, the better. The sooner he sees this as a flexible organisation of nine member States working together in the interests of achieving both industrial and economic policies which will help the member States at a time of a very difficult world recession, the better.

At the forthcoming meeting, if there is discussion of the possible entry of Greece into the Community, wilt my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one further advantage to be obtained from that entry could be an improvement of the relations between the Greek Government and NATO?

It is a very fair point to make that when we take into account the Greek application we should take into account all the relevant political circumstances. It is in the overall interests of this country that, at a time when Greece wishes to do so, it should come back into full membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. But the two are not linked. There are many applicant countries—Spain is one—in which people will be in favour of becoming members of the European Community but not necessarily members of NATO. Therefore, it is an indirect consequence, and it is not absolutely linked.

On the new democracies—Spain in particular—would it not be a good idea for the Foreign Secretary to discuss with his opposite numbers in the EEC the prospects and methods of nationals voting overseas—or, rather, abroad—in any particular country? Is it not a remarkable fact that in the case of Spain, in their first General Election, several million Spaniards overseas voted, in a country in which they are not used to elections? Should we not emulate that example, at least in the European direct elections, to start with, and consider the repercussions later for our own national elections?

We can have such discussions. They are envisaged. That shows that many people are beginning to realise that before Europe is ready two member States have problems over direct elections. We need a little time to get a reasonable preparation before the direct elections take place

In the context of Spain's application, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any discussion between himself and his colleagues of independent Basque representation within the EEC? In particular, has France made any representations to try to block Spain's entry because of the uncertainty of the Basque question?

No. I think that everyone considers that that is a matter for the Spanish people themselves to decide. Certainly that is my view.

What does my right hon. Friend expect to discuss on the subject of Spanish and Portuguese membership of the Community at the next Council meeting?

We are awaiting a Commission opinion on the Portuguese application, which I understand is unlikely to reach us before March. We are hopeful that we shall get a Commission opinion on Spain towards the end of the year. I hope that it will not be delayed beyond then. Then I think that the Community as a whole will want to look at the whole question of enlargement. We must look at each individual application on its own intrinsic merits. But I am in favour of a Community of 12. The sooner it can be enlarged to a Community of 12, the better.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he might be in any way embarrassed by the fact that the Minister of Agriculture has today complained about delay on the part of European Ministers agreeing on the devaluation of the green pound, when a few months ago when the Danes applied for devaluation of the green pound he was the person who demanded that there should be a delay for consideration?

That was on a technical point about. MCAs. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, in the spirit of sportsmanship for which he is famed, recognising that he had lost in the voting, immediately came to the Dispatch Box and said that he would fall in with the view of the House, and, the decision having been taken, in Brussels he feels it incumbent on him to carry it out faithfully on the basis of his long-held belief that Parliament is sovereign.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the European Ministers, will he tell them that the British Government will not be slavishly following the United States in regard to the internal affairs of countries such as France and Italy, that it is a matter for those countries to decide how to deal with their own problems, and that we do not follow President Carter's interference, which is as bad in some respects as the interference of the Soviet Union in relation to Czechoslovakia?

My hon. Friend and I have been engaged in newspaper columns in certain discussions about our views on Euro-Communism and its development, but on that particular issue I think that he and I agree. I said this in my lecture at Cambridge, and my hon. Friend will have noted the way in which this matter has been handled by the British Government.

Following immediately on that point, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether anyone is at work in the Community on drafting a declaration for Heads of Government, so that they can make clear in April to existing members and to applicants that respect for basic political freedoms is a condition for membership of the Community?

That is already in the Copenhagen statement. It is a fundamental principle that membership of the Community is based on an adhesion to democracy. On this there can be no compromise. Were any country to go against the democratic spirit, I personally believe that it would not be eligible for membership of the Community. As for the practical suggestion to Foreign Ministers that there should be a declaration which should make this clear, I think that a declaration would be one of the ways in which that could be done.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when last he met the President of the EEC Commission.

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

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

The President of the Commission and my right hon. Friend attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 17th January and my right hon. Friend expects that they will both be at the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th February.

What support does the President of the Commission now have from the Government in his restating the objective of economic and monetary union within the Community? Do the Government now think this a realistic objective in the long term?

Mr. Jenkins himself has compared the idea of the approach and what he describes as an eventual leap to monetary union with the notion of a long-jumper who lengthens his stride as he approaches the take-off point. We shall want to see how the small steps go and to be absolutely certain about where we are being asked to land before we take off.

Now that unemployment in Scotland has reached 200,000, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that the Commission will do nothing to dismantle the temporary employment subsidy? We were told at referendum time that there would not be jobs for the boys in Europe. That is a very odd slogan now.

The Government are well aware of the deep commitment of the House to the temporary employment subsidy. We take the feelings of the House very seriously in our negotiations with the Commission.

When my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary meets Mr. Jenkins, will he remind him that he was a member of the Government who introduced the temporary employment subsidy, and in the interests of thousands of workers who have been saved from the dole by the TES and the thousands who will be saved from the dole if TES continues, and in the interests of flexibility, will he tell Mr. Jenkins that the British Government will not tolerate interference from the Commission on this vitally important matter?

I certainly hope that the Commission is well aware that if it were, by its action, to aggravate the serious problems of unemployment in any member country, that would not be furthering the cause of the EEC.

As Mr. Jenkins clearly needs instruction in the technique of long jumping, may we be told the Government's view in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton)?

We see economic and monetary union as a very distant prospect. We would need to know a lot more about how it would work out before giving a commitment in detail.

Will the Foreign Secretary ask Mr. Jenkins about the statement that he made to the EEC Assembly just before Christmas, when he said that he would not wish the Commission to place before the Assembly anything with which the Assembly did not agree? That was in the Official Journal of the EEC. Does that not mean that the EEC Assembly is exercising a very powerful influence on the proposals of the Commission and, therefore, that the Assembly has much greater power than my right hon. Friend and the Government are now claiming?

Mr. Jenkins is responsible for his own analysis and observations on this matter. But, as we have repeatedly made plain in stating our views on the future of the Community, the real political strength will lie in the Council of Ministers, the Ministers of which are accountable to their domestic Parliaments, such as this Parliament here at Westminster.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Euro-passports and Euro-driving licences.

The European Uniform Passport remains under discussion in the Community. There have been no recent developments.

Does the Minister agree that the proposal for a Euro-passport is only a cosmetic manifestation of a federal State? Scandinavia has a passport union while still using perfectly ordinary national passports. Therefore, this seems to be a question of setting up an unnecessary bureaucracy. The same applies in regard to driving licences. Will the Minister give an assurance that no decision will be taken by the Council of Ministers without the full consent of this House?

The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to know that this is not a high priority in the meetings and consultations of the Community. I see no immediate prospect of the Community moving forward on this front, as we have reassured the hon. Gentleman and those who feel as he does. There will certainly be a case for full debate in the House before we move forward.

Could not my hon. Friend manage to sound just a trifle more positive? Is he not aware that it is in measures of this kind, rather than in some of the grand stratagems and schemes—EMU, for example—that the British public can have benefits from the Community? Cannot he push on a bit on these simple matters, which should be capable of agreement?

There are very strongly held views on all sides about this passport, but I agree with those who argue that at least initially its real significance would be purely symbolic. In the time available to us, we want to concentrate on issues which will be of practical and meaningful significance to the people we represent.

Does the reference to symbolic significance mean that the passport would retain the Royal Arms and the traditional and comforting words that the Minister's right hon. Friend the Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs writes into each of our passports?

I can certainly put the hon. Gentleman's mind completely at ease. It would retain almost all the most important features of the traditional passport. It would just make some genuflexions in the direction of the European Economic Community.