asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimates have been made of the total monthly costs of a United Nations peacekeeping force in Rhodesia; what proportion of those costs would be met by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he will make a statement.

These estimates must depend on decisions which would have to be taken by the Security Council. The size and extent of any United Nations involvement, anyhow, depends on the nature of any ceasefire agreement.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Can he indicate whether the Government still consider that this is a practical possibility? Is he aware of the considerable difficulties already facing the United Nations in its other peacekeeping activities?

I am aware from our experiences in Cyprus that the cost of peacekeeping is a considerable problem. Under discussion is the possibility of using the United Nations in Namibia in a peacekeeping role, and in Rhodesia. Some people believe that there is also a possible role in the Horn of Africa. All of these would stretch the limited resources of the Secretariat, probably to the limit. There is a role for the United Nations, not always in a force presence but in an observer capacity—to see free and fair elections, for example.

Whatever the cost in money, does my right hon. Friend agree that the advantages of achieving a peaceful transition to constitutional rule in Rhodesia would be enormous? Does he agree that we badly need support for the United Nations peacekeeping efforts in various parts of the world and not continual criticisms and objections?

I agree that the United Nations has a very important role. I do not believe that questions of finance should be the dominant issue when deciding this. For instance, in the talks that I had in New York recently about a peacekeeping force to go to Namibia, one of the anxieties expressed by SWAPO was that permanent members would use their financial interests to restrict the level of forces. We made clear that we would support whatever level of support the Secretary-General thought appropriate for Namibia.

Before a United Nations peacekeeping force can go into a country, the agreement of the Government of that country is required. Has the Foreign Secretary had any talks with Mr. Smith on that issue?

General Prem Chand accompanied Lord Carver to Salisbury and discussed this with all the parties there. It is true that a ceasefire is the only circumstance in which the United Nations peacekeeping force would go in. I have never tried to hide the fact that I believe that it is ambitious to seek a ceasefire, particularly between two armies neither of which has won or lost.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the various negotiations about Rhodesia.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will refuse to recognise any internal agreement in Rhodesia that does not embrace the principle of one man, one vote.

This week I have been seeing the Rev. Ndabaningi Sithole and we have been in contact with representatives of Bishop Muzorewa. I am speaking this afternoon to the United States Administration and I hope to continue private and public discussions with all parties to the dispute to try to widen and build on the existing areas of agreement.

Will the Government endorse a settlement that is within the Six Principles and which enables the people of Rhodesia democratically to elect a majority-rule Government? On a settlement being reached, will they end sanctions? If not, why not?

As the House knows, successive Governments have fully supported the Six Principles. The first four are not as appropriate as they might have been when first drafted, because events have moved on. The whole objective is contained in the fifth and sixth principles. The lifting of sanctions is an issue for the United Nations.

If, as reported, my right hon. Friend may be meeting Mr. Richard Moose, of the United States State Department, to discuss the problem of Rhodesia, will it not be possible for my right hon. Friend to consider calling a meeting with Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe and persuade them, even at this late hour, to join the talks on the future of their country? In all fairness, they ought to be offered the opportunity for the Patriotic Front to join the forces of the new Zimbabwe.

It has been a central objective of mine, despite all the difficulties, to get all the nationalist leaders together. I agree with my hon. Friend that even at this stage it is worth trying to get greater unity among the nationalist movement, in which event we shall be able to ensure a ceasefire and peaceful election period. That is a prize which we must all fight for.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the voting formula that has emerged from the internal talks is not in accord with the Six Principles that had previously been accepted by both parties to this dispute during the past 12 years? If there is to be a departure from the Six Principles, should not we be made aware of it?

As my hon. Friend knows, the sixth principle protects the rights of minorities. It is because of the protection of the rights of minorities that we ourselves proposed specially elected Members. The anxiety that has been caused, both in Rhodesia and outside, concerns the large number of specially elected representatives—28—but it appears that there will be agreement that those 28 will never form the Government of Zimbabwe. That would avoid the situation of those 28 Members being able to link up with a minority to subvert the results of the election. I also think it important that those 28 Members should not elect a President of Zimbabwe or be able to impeach the President of Zimbabwe.

We agree—I think that the right hon. Gentleman agrees, also—that any settlement has to be based on democracy. Would the Foreign Secretary like to hazard a guess about the potential vote of Mr. Mugabe and Mr. Nkomo? Does he seriously think that there is the least chance of their joining in with any settlement while the Western world, the international community and the United Kingdom Government are in a total state of indecision?

I would not like to hazard a guess about that, nor would I like to hazard a guess about the vote that the hon. Gentleman will get at the next General Election. I suspect that he would not hazard a guess with regard to what my vote will be at the next General Election.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one of the things which concerns the Patriotic Front is the question of an amnesty for Mr. Smith and his associates? Does he agree that it is as psychologically impossible to expect African nationalists who have been imprisoned, tortured and seen their friends executed by Smith and his friends over the last 12 years to grant an amnesty as it would have been to expect the Free French to give an amnesty to Petain?

The amnesty was part of the proposals put before the House in the Command Paper. I believe that if we are to get a peaceful settlement for an independent Zimbabwe we shall have to turn that page of history and not look back. Although I accept that it is asking a great deal of people to accept an amnesty, I am convinced that an amnesty is an essential ingredient for a new independent and stable Zimbabwe.

I hesitate to give the Foreign Secretary advice or guidance, but may I suggest to him that his blatant advocacy of the Patriotic Front, has only made it put up its terms? If he wants to bring in the Patriotic Front he would do better not to run after it. I should also like to venture to correct one of his statements—

Order. May I correct the right hon. Gentleman? He may do that in the form of a question.

May I also ask the Foreign Secretary whether he is aware that when he said that the issue of sanctions was a matter for the United Nations it was almost a contempt of this House, because if this House does not renew the sanctions order in the autumn there will be no sanctions?

There will be no sanctions at all in the United Kingdom, but that is a very different question. If I understood the question, it related to the renewal of sanctions under the mandatory order of the United Nations, of which we are a member.

Is not the essence of the Six Principles that any settlement should be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe as a whole? Does my right hon. Friend think that the present arrangements give anything like adequate coverage to those people in Zimbabwe who support the Patriotic Front?

It is difficult to make a judgment of what is or is not acceptable until the people of Zimbabwe have made their view clear. It is for the people as a whole to come to a decision, because, as my hon. Friend knows, there are still very important discussions going on and quite obvious disagreements on major issues, such as whether the transitional Government will reflect the balance of the executive council, as has been asked for, as I understand it, by Bishop Muzorewa, Mr. Sithole and Chief Chirau. There is some dispute about the nature of the transitional Government. The greater the extent to which the world can see a movement towards black majority government, the more credible it will be.

Does the Foreign Secretary recognise that the House welcomes what appears to be the markedly more conciliatory tone that he has adopted today to the whole question of an internal settlement? Will he also take advantage of his discussions with the United States representative this afternoon to make clear that careful reflection and consideration of the whole matter is desirable before giving vent to what might be very damaging statements?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. On Thursday I suggested that careful consideration and thought would provoke a thoughtful response, and I did not get the understanding from Conservative Benches that I have received today. In the light of the events of the past few days, more people have come to recognise that my initial response of caution was wise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in the light of the guidelines recently agreed and published by the Nuclear Suppliers' Group.

The Government's policy is to ensure that exports of nuclear material and technology can be used only for peaceful purposes. We have succeeded, with the other 14 members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group, in preparing guidelines which form a minimum agreed standard for this policy. The Nuclear Suppliers' Group will continue, in our view, to have a useful role, under United Kingdom chairmanship, in strengthening international efforts to prevent nuclear proliferation.

I welcome that statement. Does the Minister agree that all these efforts in the Nuclear Suppliers' Group are little more than a brave but belated attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable? What are the provisions, in the event of a violation of the guidelines, for members to act? Is it a question of unanimity or of carrying along as many suppliers as possible?

I cannot agree that these efforts are of no value. They represent a valuable minimum standard. I hope that we shall see them applied as widely as possible. At present they apply to members of the Nuclear Suppliers' Group. They have been notified to the International Atomic Energy Authority and we hope that as many other Governments as possible, including those that may become nuclear Powers in the future, will adopt the same policy for nuclear exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the Belgrade conference on the issue of human rights.

Not a great deal. I would, however, claim that for the first time ever all countries that signed the Helsinki Final Act have had their record on human rights systematically examined and criticised and have been given an opportunity to respond.

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that reply, limited though it has to be. Has he seen the report this morning about the arrest of the eighteenth member of the so-called Helsinki Group in Russia, Mr. Vins, whose name is likely to be added to the list of Scharansky, Ginsberg, Orlov and many others whose names we do not know and who are imprisoned without trial in Russia? When the right hon. Gentleman took office, he made a robust speech on human rights. Will he confirm that this is still the Government's policy.

Yes, Sir. I stand by every word of that speech. I have repeated many of those views since. I do not believe that any of us would accept that it could be an offence to monitor the progress of the Helsinki Final Act, which was signed by the Heads of Government of all the attendant States. Therefore, one would have expected all the member States to give facilities for people to monitor the implementaton of the Final Act, but they have not been given in a number of the member States.

Was anything said about the proposal in Great Britain to withdraw the human right of a woman to live with her husband here in this country?

I do not think that that specific issue was raised, but our record on human rights was subjected to criticism, and rightly so. If the Belgrade Review Conference is to have any success, all member States should accept scrutiny and criticism. We were criticised for some of the things that have occurred in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. We rebutted those criticisms. I regret that we have not made progress on human rights in the sense that we can achieve, at the end, a communique which will reaffirm in a way that I would like a commitment to human rights.

Has the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Government of the Soviet Union that they cannot expect to pick and choose which parts of the Helsinki agreement they observe and which they do not? They should not expect to benefit from the economic sections of Helsinki if they flagrantly break the human rights sections.

It has always been part of our policy that the Helsinki Final Act must be seen as a whole, in all its aspects. That is why we have been willing to discuss the military confidence-building measures, and scientific and technological exchange and communication, but have also insisted on human rights. The Soviet Union on a number of occasions seemed to resent the fact that human rights were legitimately discussed under the Final Act.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Soviet Union has stonewalled consistently at Belgrade, that it is vital that there should be mention of human rights in the final statement, and that to have no such statement would be an absolute mockery of the Helsinki agreement?

I think that the final statement will reflect that. We have not been able to reach massive agreement, but I have made it clear to the House on a number of occasions that I prefer that to a cosmetic communiqué which pretends that there is more agreement than there is. I prefer to live to discuss these matters another day, to go to Madrid and cover the same ground, hoping that by then there will have been further progress towards implementing the Final Act.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but will he confirm that in ensuring that there should be a continuation of the dialogue and discussion he will not let the Government be drawn into being party to such an emasculated statement, after the Belgrade conference, as to undermine people's confidence in their defence of human rights?

I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman means by "emasculated statement". If one fails to agree, one will effectively end up with a minimalist statement, virtually saying that one has met. If it is to be an agreed communiqué, it will not cover many of the grounds. What we have done is to table the sort of communiqué that we, the Western Powers, think should have been the accumulation of our efforts. Unfortunately, the full realisation is not likely to be so successful.

Yes, but a communiqué would not be invalid which rehearsed on the one side our views of what the conclusion should be and on the other the Soviet Union's rebuttal. To my mind, that would not be an emasculated statement and would therefore be a valid one.

I agree, but at present that sort of statement does not look as though it can be achieved. It is not finalised yet, but I think that it will be a fairly bare statement of fact.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the forthcoming Special Session on disarmament of the United Nations General Assembly.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he will make when he attends the Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York this spring.

The Government attach great importance to the Special Session. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will speak, and I will accompany him.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the importance that the Government attach to the Special Session in particular and the considerable work that has gone into the draft Programme of Action are very much appreciated? As one of the matters to be discussed in New York is the conventional trade in arms, however, does not my right hon. Friend think that his own position at New York would be much strengthened if he could persuade my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence not to hold an international exhibition of arms available for export from Britain at the very time when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be addressing the conference in New York?

This is no more than an ongoing part of British policy, which is to sell arms to those countries where we think it will not affect the balance in a particular region. The real question is whether we can achieve a multilateral agreement to reduce arms sales, particularly among some of the Western industrialised Powers, to follow up the initiative started by President Carter to try to achieve some voluntary limitation.

Apart from the question of armaments sales, which some of us on the Labour Benches wish was not part of Her Majesty's Government's policy, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the American Government that their decision to go ahead with a massive programme of rearmament is a poor preliminary to the conference, and suggest that they hold their horses a little while until the conference is over, when they might be able to modify the programme to some degree?

The United States and British Governments are involved in detailed negotiations on a comprehensive test ban. The United States has tabled very ambitious proposals for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks and I believe that it will achieve a SALT agreement this year. It is showing in a number of areas that it is genuine in its intent to have serious disarmament measures, as, indeed, we are. What we are not in favour of is cosmetic or propaganda disarmament statements.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the country will have heard with relief yesterday what the Prime Minister said about his estimation of Russian progress with very dangerous weapons such as the SS 20, and will he avoid allowing himself to be boxed in to any kind of corner by propaganda in this matter but make sure that the people realise what the Russian position really is?

We shall state the factual position of the arms race clearly and unequivocally to the House. However, we shall be constantly working for sensible multilateral disarmament measures—the policy which will safeguard the interests of this country and the world.

What contribution does my right hon. Friend think the latest French proposals will make to the discussion of disarmament?

It is rather early to analyse them. Until after the French election it will be difficult to enter into the sort of detailed negotiations that I should like to see on them. The views of the French Socialist Party, expressed in fighting the election, show that there is a greater readiness by the French to enter into discussions on disarmament, particularly in Central Europe, than hitherto.

I attach the greatest possible importance to the proposed Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament, but is it not self-evident to the Secretary of State that one major threat to peace is the lack of military balance between East and West, and that the Soviet criticism of the proposed deployment of the essentially defensive neutron bomb in Europe is a smokescreen to hide the fact that the Soviet Union is developing a wide range of devastatingly dangerous aggressive weapons, such as the SS 20? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear these factors in mind?

Certainly the Soviet Union's protests about the enhanced radiation weapon would carry a great deal more conviction if they were not accompanied by a substantial increase of its gross national product devoted to defence and the introduction of a whole range of new weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the negotiations with the Malaysian Government on Concorde over-flying rights of the Malacca Straits.

Further talks were held with the Malaysian Government in Kuala Lumpur from 25th to 27th January, and on 13th and 14th February, and will be continued in a fortnight. We have provided the Malaysians with further material on environmental matters and believe that we are close to meeting their concern.

Will the Minister accept that most people believe that the wrangle has to do either with money on behalf of the Malaysians or spite on their behalf that Singapore Airlines is gaining an advantage by flying Concorde? Is not the net result of this continuing damage to the future marketing prospects of the aeroplane?

The intention of the Government is to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. We believe that the prospects are good. I do not believe that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will consider that his remarks have helped us in that respect.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any talk between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on the question of Concorde and the recent Press reports that France is considering cancelling the whole project?

I have no information whatsoever which would support that thesis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the Condominium Assembly in the New Hebrides.

Yes, Sir. Following uncontested elections on 29th November last year, the new Assembly met for the first time on 5th December and elected its Chairman and a Chief Minister. A Council of Ministers was appointed on 13th January following a visit by the British and French High Commissioners.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this present Assembly is an unelected minority body, and that the British Government hold a grave responsibility for allowing a predominantly Francophobe Assembly to govern the country?

It is not the case that the present Assembly was not elected. There were elections, but the elections were not contested.

I appeal to the House for shorter answers as well as shorter questions.

When looking at the Assembly, will the Minister bear in mind that there is grave doubt as to the legality of the present judicial system in the country? It appears that His Majesty the King of Spain has a right of arbitration under treaties which have not been abrogated.

I know that there is a very complicated judicial system in the New Hebrides. I will take account of the hon. Gentleman's observation.

Why not hand the Scotland Bill to the New Hebrides?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council the presence of 27,000 Cubans in Africa as a threat to world peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council as a threat to world peace the existence of Soviet and Cuban armed intervention in the internal affairs of Angola, Ethiopia and South Yemen.

We have for some time been trying to bring the situation in the Horn of Africa before the Security Council and will continue to do so.

Were not these numbers verified by the American Secretary of State, and do they not present a much greater threat to the people of the world than does the situation in South Africa? Will he recognise this and do something about it?

We have taken considerable political and diplomatic initiatives, in conjunction with our Western partners, to try to get negotiations going in the Horn of Africa, where the issue is of paramount importance. We shall continue to do that.

Will the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government believe peace and detente to be indivisible? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government let the Soviet Union know that our trade links and our economic links with that country will suffer until they call off their Cubans and East Germans?

The issue of trade is much wider, but we make the point—and have made it repeatedly—that detente cannot just be an East-West and European question but must extend universally and include Africa.

Has my hon. Friend or his right hon. Friend taken any active steps to talk to the Soviet Union, at either ambassador or Foreign Minister level, about the presence of the Cubans, however many there may be, in the Horn of Africa?

Yes, most certainly. This issue has been raised with the Soviet Union on many occasions.

Will the hon. Gentleman agree that unless some counter-action is taken the influence of the Western Powers—Britain and America—and of Japan, and so on, is very likely to go by default? Although we all understand the importance of the Organisation for African Unity's principle of respect of frontiers, is not response to the advance of the new Soviet colonial empire something which should have priority?

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should embark on a great arms race in the Horn of Africa. What we have said repeatedly is that we certainly cannot get arms involved in the present Ogadenese situation. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that what is import- ant is to try to get negotiations going. That has been the main burden of our effort.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the situation in the Horn of Africa is possibly a threat to peace, greater threats to world peace are the illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa, the illegal regime in Rhodesia, and the apartheid system in South Africa? In view of the fact that the United Nations has declared this coming year as a year against apartheid, surely that is the issue that the Security Council should be considering.

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of trying to find a settlement of the Namibian problem. We have been very much involved, with the five Western Powers, in trying to find an international acceptable solution to the problem of Namibia. That is where our efforts should be directed.

Is the Minister concerned that the prospect of Cuban involvement is tending to become part of the permanent landscape of Africa? Does he not agree that this seems to be a very real danger?

We do not disagree about the importance and seriousness of Cuban intervention in a number of parts of Africa. What we are discussing is how to deal with it. We believe that, particularly in the context of the Horn of Africa, we must get negotiations going and try to solve an extremely difficult problem. We must try to find the best way forward to deal with the question of Cuban or Soviet intervention in these very serious issues.

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

My right hon. Friend met the then Turkish Foreign Minister in London on 14th October. I myself visited Ankara in September last year and also held talks with the then Foreign Minister.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he seek an early meeting with the Turkish Foreign Minister in order to discuss a reported change of attitude by the new Turkish Government over Cyprus? Does he agree that the British Government in particular have a special role which they can play here in trying to bring about peaceful relations and perhaps better sense between the two communities on this tragic island?

I think that anyone following developments in Turkey must be encouraged by the statement of Mr. Ecevit and the new Government. We shall do everything we can to facilitate the working out of a solution between the Turkish Government and the Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot communities in Cyprus.

Although there has apparently been a welcome change of heart in Ankara, does the Minister agree that there will also need to be a responsive gesture from Athens if any solution is to be found to these difficulties?

The belief of the Government is that the principal way in which a solution will be found is within Cyprus, because it is the people of Cyprus who must subscribe to a solution and make it work.

Will my right hon. Friend try to co-ordinate the political efforts that he is making to find a solution in Cyprus with the economic attitude of the European Community, which is making it very difficult for the economy of the Republic of Cyprus, with its agricultural exports, to survive? The difficulty is that this attitude may jeopardise a settlement in the meantime.

I am disappointed that it has not been possible for the Community to respond more favourably and readily to the economic needs of Cyprus. I hope that we are making progress and that a solution is within sight.

Will the Minister confirm reports that there is now a good prospect of a meeting between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers? In view of the great importance of such a meeting, which is planned to take place, what can Her Majesty's Government do, either directly or through the European Community, to edge such a meeting forward to success?

As I understand it, it has already been agreed that a meeting should take place. We have very good relationships with the two Governments and were at pains, in our discussions bilaterally with those Governments, to make sure that we discussed with them ways in which we could facilitate progress not only on Cyprus but on other issues, such as the Aegean and the problem of defence on the southern flank of NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will invite the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom.

My right hon. Friend has already renewed his predecessor's invitation to the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom. No date has yet been fixed.

Whenever that meeting takes place, will my right hon. Friend consider it proper to suggest that when Mr. Hua Kuo-Feng visits France he should also visit Britain?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has heard my hon. Friend's question and will take note of what he has said. We hope that the Chinese Foreign Minister will visit as soon as possible. My right hon. Friend is himself hoping to visit China soon.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets Mr. Huang Hua, will he discuss China's highly successful foreign aid policy to the poorer Third World countries, in order to draw lessons for the United Kingdom based on the Chinese experience and encourage technological aid programmes to such poorer Third World countries?

As someone who has studied Chinese policy for quite a long time, I agree that China's aid programme has a lot that is interesting and perhaps of some value to us. We are already aware of the kind of programmes in which China has engaged.

When the Foreign Minister of China comes for conversations, will my right hon. Friend discuss with him the anachronistic nineteenth century colonial regime in Hong Kong'?

I think that my hon. Friend knows that we have an extremely friendly relationship with the Chinese Government with regard to the situation in Hong Kong. No major problems arise in connection with that relationship at present. It is most unlikely that this will be a subject for serious discussion between the Chinese Foreign Minister and our own Foreign Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it known to the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation representatives at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation summit meeting on 30th May that Her Majesty's Government are opposed to the deployment of the neutron bomb on British territory.

The position on possible production or deployment of enhanced radiation reduced blast warheads remains as described in the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) on 15th December last.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not agree that the original decision to deploy nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom automatically made the British people a target for Russian nuclear weapons? Does he agrees that it would be extremely ill advised, if not on moral grounds, at least on practical grounds, to agree at the forthcoming conference with Carter and other NATO Heads of State to the deployment of this terrifying weapon in Britain—which would automatically subject the British people to retaliation by similar weapons—particularly if the permission of the British people is not asked?

I should like to emphasise that there is no question of a decision being taken on this matter without all aspects of the matter being thoroughly considered. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the rationale advanced for the development of ERW is for a particular defensive rôle against tank forma- tions in the battlefield area if nuclear weapons ever have to be used.

Will the Minister give a definite guarantee not to add to existing nuclear storage risks in Scotland and state categorically that neutron bombs will not be stored on Scottish soil?

There is no question of a decision being taken on this matter until all relevant dimensions of the problem have been considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it plain in any negotiations with the Argentine over sovereignty on the Falkland Islands that the wishes of the islanders will be ascertained directly by referendum before any changes are made and that the arrangements for any such referendum will have to be approved by the United Kingdom Parliament.

We have made it clear to the Argentine Government that any proposals affecting the future of the Falkland Islands must be acceptable to the islanders themselves. The method by which the islanders may express their wishes on any proposals will first be a matter for discussion with their elected representatives, the Islands councils.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the distaste felt by many Members on both sides of the House that the Government are holding any talks on sovereignty by a military dictatorship over a free, democratic British community? If the Government are caught in a trap, will the hon. Gentleman give a categoric assurance not only that there will be a referendum but that the arangements for it will be discussed in this House and that no steps will be taken in advance to surrender the economic viability of the Falkland Islands to the Argentine without full consultation with Parliament?

The House and the islanders have been given the best assurances that any Government have ever given about their future and their economic and political development. My answer on that question was absolute.

Since it is evident from their geographical location that the Falkland Islands must live with their neighbour on the mainland, the Argentine, can my hon. Friend tell us, in regard to his talks in New York, what steps he is taking on commercial and other types of co-operation and collaboration with the Argentine, particularly in fishing and oil?

Part of the negotiations is concerned with economic co-operation, particularly in regard to offshore resources of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend.

It makes sense to encourage economic co-operation between the Argentine and the Falkland Islands, but can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is the point of having discussions with the Argentine on the question of the Falkland Islands' sovereignty, or with Guatemala on the question of the sovereignty of Belsize, when there is clearly no desire on the part of the Falkland Islanders or the people of Belsize to change their sovereignty?

The hon. Gentleman is mixing up two problems. In the case of the Falkland Islands, to which the Question is directed, I had lengthy discussions with the islanders in February before the beginning of the negotiations and I made clear that it would be impossible to talk just about economic co-operation without political issues, including sovereignty, being raised. It would have been unrealistic to think otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the number of individual applications made against each of the States which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction under the European Convention of Human Rights for each of the last three years.

As the list is long, I will arrange for it to be published in the Official Report.

I look forward to the Official Report with interest. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that this matter has not been debated in the House, and will he therefore undertake that there will be a thorough public review of the advantages and disadvantages of compulsory jurisdiction, as it affects this country, before we renew it in 1981?

I shall take full account of what the hon. Gentleman said. It is our view that the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government treat the issue of human rights.

Although many hon. Members are genuinely concerned about freedom from Chile to Czechoslovakia, many other hon. Members are not—Members who are deliberately using the issue of human rights to wreck detente, disarmament and the Belgrade conference. When my right hon. Friend attends the conference, will he ignore that clamour and put peace first?

Anyone who knows my right hon. Friend will know that peace is at the top of his priorities. His commitment to human rights is illustrated by what he said this afternoon, namely, that we want no charades in this respect; we want substantial and meaningful progress.

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 expects to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

I expect that the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 7th March will be the next occasion on which I shall meet the Presidents of the EEC Council of Ministers and of the EEC Commission.

Would the Foreign Secretary and the EEC President agree at that meeting that no candidate for election to the European Parliament should be elected unless he or she gains at least 40 per cent. of the votes of the total electorate—I repeat, the total electorate?

It is a little late to move an amendment to that effect in this House, but no doubt the hon. Member will make representations in Brussels.

Will the Foreign Secretary convey to his fellow Euro-fanatics that, when Parliament passes measures which are contrary to the wishes of the great majority of the British people, action must be taken outside the House to put these things right? Will he therefore remind the Europeans that battles may take place on tachographs, fishing and the temporary employment subsidy? There may even be battles on the question of sending Members of Parliament to the European Parliament on £30,000 a year. These matters still remain unresolved. Will my right hon. Friend remind the Europeans of them, especially Mr. Jenkins?

I thought that I was the person who was always criticising people for Euro-fanaticism. I did not quite follow my hon. Friend's remarks about action outside the House. If he is suggesting that people should take action to subvert decisions of this House, I do not share his sentiments and I am sure that other hon. Members do not, either.

Will the Foreign Secretary explain how he can have any kind of meaningful supranational discussions with the EEC Commission if the attitude of the British Government is to refuse to make any concessions whatever, even on the most piffling matters such as those mentioned by his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

My hon. Friend raised issues such as fishing, which is not in any sense piffling. Even the question of tachographs is very sensitive among those people most affected, and the British Government have recognised this fact. We are perfectly prepared to take unpleasant and difficult decisions. With much difficulty, and by causing a lot of disturbance, we have carried the direct elections legislation through this House to another place. The British Government have compromised on many issues and will continue to do so. This Parliament put us in a position to implement the VAT directives when a number of other countries have not lived up to their obligations. We do not castigate them and we do not expect them to castigate us.

Will the Foreign Secretary take the opportunity at the next meeting with the President to remind him that the British Government are totally opposed to monetary union? Will he remind the President that there is no evidence whatever to support his view that full employment can be restored to EEC member States only if monetary union takes place?

I thought that most people believed that in its fullest sense European monetary union was still a long way off. It is not something which we should spend a lot of time considering, with our present economic problems. That does not mean that the President, who has a responsibility to Europe as a whole, should not point to the future and explain policies that he thinks should be implemented in future. The Commission has said that it wants a measured programme for five years, and that does not include European monetary union.

May I press the Foreign Secretary to take up with the European Heads of Government at the European Council in Copenhagen, on 7th and 8th April, the need to find a way of emphasising that membership of the EEC is not compatible with the suppression or erosion of political freedoms, whether this is attempted by the Left or the Right?

I thought that the hon. Member knew that a declaration about democracy at the next European Council has been agreed. People have been drafting this and I think that it will be a useful declaratory gesture. However, it is not as detailed a safeguard as I once hoped would be possible to achieve.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take the initiative in the next meeting of the Council of Ministers to propose a date for the first European direct elections.

No. The Council of Ministers is already reviewing the situation in member States in preparation for a discussion at the European Council in Copenhagen on 7th and 8th April. It is expected that a decision will be taken then.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Now that the Foreign Secretary has got off his chest the dramatic and controversial fact that Britain is an island, will he redeem our flagging and, indeed, non-existent European reputation by offsetting the appalling delay in taking the direct elections Bill through the House?

It is well recognised that we are fully committed to the Community. On issues of great concern to the United Kingdom we represent our interests. In the context of doing that, we look for solutions that improve the well-being not just of our own people but of Europe as a whole.

Has the Minister any more information about the decision of the French Government to delay direct elections in that country until they have an assurance that the Assembly will not move to Brussels?

We have had no such formal communication from the French Government.

Will the Minister of State draw to the attention of the President his recent report in which he said that the Commission would do all in its power to ensure that direct elections were fought on major European issues? Will he tell the President that civil servants, no matter how grand and civilised, have no right to interfere in election issues? Will he tell him to mind his own business?

I certainly can tell the House that it is the unqualified view of the British Government that direct elections will be fought by politicians on issues that they think important.

Can my hon. Friend say whether the British Government will put forward their date for direct elections?

We have indicated to the House that this will be considered at the European Council.

May I press the Minister on this relevant issue? Will he tell us what proposals and what attitudes the Prime Minister will take with him to Copenhagen? The issue of direct elections is not like the date of the General Election, where the Prime Minister, by convention, carries his cards up his sleeve. This is a matter on which the House is entitled to have information about the Government's intentions.

The Bill has gone forward for consideration in another place. We shall have to see what progress it makes there before we can make any proposal.

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

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

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

Does the Foreign Secretary recall making a speech in Edinburgh a few weeks ago which greatly disturbed his hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in which he indicated that measures would be taken to ensure that the Executive of the Scottish Assembly was consulted on EEC matters? Does he accept that this is something that should be discussed with his European colleagues at the forthcoming meeting?

No, because the Bill has not yet gone through Parliament and the people of Scotland have not yet voted in the referendum. No final decision has been made in this House.

Will the Foreign Secretary make clear to his colleagues in Europe and on the Commission that the Government intend to continue the policies to protect and create jobs, irrespective of what the European Commission says? Will he remind them that this capitalist bloc in Europe has lamentably failed to deal with unemployment?

I shall make it clear to the Commission and the Council that at a time of stubbornly high unemployment in all EEC States it does seem most maladroit politics to try to examine, in a spirit which may have been appropriate at a time of full employment, the various measures that member States have taken in a desperate attempt to reduce unemployment.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, will he review the progress being made on the enlargement of the Community, particularly in regard to Greece and the applications of Portugal and Spain, and see what he can do to get matters moving, because they sem to be going very slowly?

We are awaiting the Commission's opinion on Portugal and the Fresco report, which will be an over-view of the whole issue of enlargement which the Commission promised. I agree that the question of enlargement is the most serious issue facing the Community, and it will be under almost continuous discussion.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the criticism being made by our Common Market partners about the assistance that the Government are giving towards the problems of unemployment in this country and the creation of new work schemes? Would he consider it helpful to publish in the Official Report the schemes being operated by our Common Market partners to protect their own countries against the effect of unemployment?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is having discussions with and is convincing the Commissioner and the Commission officials that the various steps that we are taking are necessary and vital and that it would be extremely foolish to interfere with them at this time. No one denies the right of the Commission to look at this sort of area, but it is most inappropriate to do it at a time when unemployment is at such a high level. It is the sort of thing that could be done when the Community is looking at its macro-economic policies in a period of expansion.

Since the European Convention on Human Rights may come up in the right hon. Gentleman's discussions, will he say whether he feels any embarrassment at the revelations in The Times about the forcible repatriation of Soviet exiles, who went to their certain death? Will he make available under the convention all pertinent documents? In view of the blot that attaches to the reputation of some distinguished public servants in this country, will he make sure that there is the fullest investigation and a report to Parliament?

The decision to publish under the 30-year rule exposes these issues to the public gaze. I strongly supported the change from 50 years to 30 years, and some would argue that the period should be shortened even further. However, there are consequences for individuals and for the House if we reduce the time limit. It is bound to affect people still living. I think that inquiry and scrutiny are in the public domain. If the people concerned are still alive, they are free to comment, and other people are also free to comment, on the documentation, but it would be a major step if, having reduced the period, we felt that every time documents revealed criticism we should set up a formal inquiry. However, this is not a matter for me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland raised the matter of Northern Ireland and its status at the EEC Council of Ministers; and what reply he made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

No, Sir. This matter has not been raised in any meeting of the Council of Ministers.

I am much obliged for that reply, which denies the statement made by the Eire Foreign Minister. Is not membership of the Common Market an acceptance of the territorial boundaries of other member States, and would the hon. Gentleman emphatically and bluntly tell the Eire Government to belt up and stop playing politics with the lives of Ulster people by continuing to demand British withdrawal from a part of the United Kingdom and attempting to deny the right of Ulster people to remain British?

Membership of the Community is certainly a recognition of the territorial boundaries of other member States.

Has my hon. Friend received representations from Ireland or elsewhere about the rumoured proposal of the Conservative Party to take away the vote from the Irish community in the United Kingdom?

We have had no such representations from fellow members, but, like my hon. Friend, we read the newspapers.

While the future status of Northern Ireland is a matter for the United Kingdom and the people of the Province, could not the Dublin Government prove helpful to the concert of Europe and to peace in the island of Ireland by signing the European Convention on Terrorism?

The view of the British Government on this matter is well understood by the Government in Dublin.