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

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

When my hon. Friend or my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary visits Singapore, will he tell Mr. Lee Kuan Yew that over 80 hon. Members of this House have signed an Early-Day Motion protesting at the detention of people without trial in his country? Will my hon. Friend, as a champion of human rights, protest about the continued detention without trial of those who were originally detained under Operation Cold Store in 1963 and are still in prison, 15 years later?

I hope that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew carefully studies the Order Paper of the House of Commons and is therefore aware of the considerable concern that exists in this House on the matter. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House nearly two years ago, he believes that Mr. Lee Kuan Yew is well aware of our views on this question.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the detentions took place at a time when we had responsibility in that area? Do we not retain a moral obligation to intervene at this stage?

The Internal Security Council of which we were at that time a member was dissolved in 1963. The detention orders then made were for only two years and they have been renewed since. We therefore cannot take any responsibility for the present detention of these people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had to the draft Programme of Action on Disarmament for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reactions he has received from other Governments to the draft Programme of Action on Disarmament for the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

The draft Programme of Action has been co-sponsored by nine other Western States, has the general support of several others, and now forms the basic Western position paper for this part of the Final Document of the Special Session.

Since the first point in this excellent draft programme is always concerned with the halting and reversal of the nuclear arms race, will my right hon. Friend consider pressing the Government to make sure that a decision about the development and deployment of the neutron bomb is not made until the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament has had an opportunity to get off to a good start in the best of all possible environments?

As I understand it, even if the decision were taken immediately to produce the bomb, it would be nearly two years before it could be deployed. A rather misleading impression has been created about the neutron bomb. It is not a separate category of weapon but is a modified design of nuclear warhead. The point of developing such a warhead as compared with those that both sides already have would be to maintain the military effectiveness of the weapon against heavily protected forces, especially armoured formations, while reducing the risk of collateral damage and injuries outside the target area.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that since the United Kingdom is a member of the NATO Alliance, which has nuclear arms, it seems absurd that we should possess our own nuclear weapon? Would not this be a favourable opportunity to make a practical gesture by renouncing the use of this independent weapon, since no one seems to know in what circumstances we would be prepared to use it?

I have never believed that progress in disarmament can be achieved by major unilateral decisions. That is not to say that each side in any multilateral disarmament does not have to make progress simultaneously, and often progress does come from an ability to move from one possibility before another. But I have always believed that the whole strategy of nuclear deterrence is to deter, and that relates to the credibility of being able to use a weapon. In the case of the British nuclear weapon, one of its advantages is that there is a multi-decision point, so that it could always be envisaged as being used only in circumstances in which all of our allies were involved. This multi-decision point adds to the deterrent value.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there needs now to be a supreme effort by Governments to reduce the build-up of the arms race? Would not the cause of world peace be better served if the resources of East and West were diverted to help solve the problems of the poor in the undeveloped areas rather than being wasted on this vast build-up of military expenditure?

I agree, but one must look at both sides of the issue. Whilst reasonable demands are being made by my hon. Friends about our weapon systems, we must also look at those being developed by the Warsaw Pact countries, in particular the new SS20.

Will the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary discuss with our European allies the reality that if we lack conventional forces we lower the nuclear threshold?

I do not disagree with that at all.

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, both the super-Powers contend that they already have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world many times over. What is the purpose of adding to the number of murderous weapons when we can already, if we so desire and are stupid enough, make a complete graveyard of the entire world?

I agree with my right hon. Friend. There is a gross overkill capacity of nuclear megatonnage all over the world. I think, therefore, that there is a great necessity for a reduction in all forms of weapons, but particularly nuclear weapons. This is one of the major objectives of the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, which I hope will be successfully concluded in a few months' time. A contribution to that is being made by the comprehensive test ban negotiations, of which we are part.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has studied the report by Amnesty International concerning the imprisonment of workers in psychiatric hospitals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and if he will make representations in these matters to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Reports of the misuse of psychiatry for political purposes are a matter of serious concern. The Government have made private representations to the Soviet Government on this and other questions involving human rights, and my right hon. Friend has publicly expressed his views on the general principles at stake on many occasions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is the first known occasion, for a very long time, anyhow, on which ordinary workers in the Soviet Union are being treated in this sadistic fashion? Will he continue to make his protests to the Soviet Union? Moreover, will he consider consulting our own TUC in order that it may make representations to the trade union people that it has entertained from time to time?

I have already said that I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a very serious matter. I have explained that we have made our views known. It has been reported in the Press that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, when in the Soviet Union. took the opportunity of expressing his great concern on this matter.

Is the Minister aware that there is widespread concern about this matter? Has he had any representations from the British Medical Association about its views on doctors who allow their medical skills to be prostituted for political purposes?

Many individual medical practitioners and psychiatrists in this country and other parts of the world have already expressed their profound concern about the matter. I understand that they have expressed their concern to their professional colleagues in the Soviet Union.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I had the opportunity of reading the relevant papers in translation before they were printed in this country, and that the workers involved are not in ideological conflict with the Soviet Union? What they wish to do is to form free trade unions without being connected with the State, in precisely the way that we have free trade unions in this country.

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the most disturbing features of this and one or two other actions that have been reported in recent months is that it looks as though this is a deliberate attempt to suppress the rights of workers to join in a free association of free trade unions of the kind to which we are accustomed in this country. It must be a matter of grave concern to the whole House if the detention of people, allegedly on psychiatric grounds, can be used as a substitute for arbitrary detention as a means of keeping out of the way undesirable political opponents.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Great Britain's relations with Uganda.

I have nothing to add to the reply that my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 25th January. We have no plans to restore relations.

When will the Government put an end to the shameful Stansted shuttle? Is the Minister aware that the terms of trade between Britain and Uganda are still three-to-one in favour of Uganda? Are the Government working towards mandatory arms sanctions against Uganda? If not, why not?

The hon. Member knows that we do not sell any arms to Uganda; nor do any of our friends and allies. To institute total trade sanctions against Uganda would be a very serious step to take, which we have not so far taken against any other country, however grave the violations of human rights.

Does Great Britain have any relations with Uganda? Will the Minister explain to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) that it is the United Kingdom which has relations with other countries?

Yes, I agree. It is the United Kingdom which has no relations with Uganda at present.

Is it not a fact that our main relations now with Uganda consist of the weekly airlift of luxury products which go to the elite of President Amin? Is he aware that nine months ago I was told that Her Majesty's Government were continuously looking into the difficult technical points which had to be overcome and that an announcement would be made? How much longer do we have to wait?

There are serious legal problems about cutting off these flights. They are being very carefully examined. The legal complexities are being looked into. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement fairly soon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now raise with the Security Council, as a threat to world peace, the increasing number of Cuban soldiers in the Horn of Africa.

Following the Somali withdrawal from the Ogaden, we believe that there is no case for a continued Cuban presence in the area and that their troops should be withdrawn.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the extraordinary and appalling report in The Times this morning, which purports to describe a massacre occurring in Addis Ababa, under the headline

"Boy of 14 shot dead after being tortured in Ethiopian red terror "?

I made very strong representations when I saw the Deputy Foreign Minister only a few weeks ago about human rights in that country. It is a matter of grave concern.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Cuban troops in Ethiopia are there at the invitation of the Ethiopian Government? Does he further agree that there is a certain inconsistency between the Conservative Party's attitude towards the presence of Cuban troops in Ethiopia and its former attitude towards the presence of British troops in Oman to support a manifestly puppet Government?

We have always stood by the OAU principle of respecting territorial integrity and believing that boundaries should be changed by negotiations and discussions.

I have just returned from the Horn of Africa. Does the Foreign Secretary not agree that it is essential that Western nations should work with the African nations to seek the removal of Soviet and Cuban intervention in the Horn of Africa? In the light of this, will the British Government take a lead in providing humanitarian, economic and other assistance to Somalia? Will he, above all, take a lead in exposing at the United Nations the nature of the Soviet and Cuban support for the Ethiopian regime, which appears to show no respect for human rights?

We are concerned at the suffering that the conflict has caused, and we responded immediately to requests from the United Nations High Commission for Refugees and other bodies. We have already been able to get some supplies there and we shall consider any further requests. But I agree that the main objective of our foreign policy should be to work with African States, which themselves are very opposed to outside interference in African affairs. It is a fundamental principle of OAU activity that they should try to develop the cohesion and strength to solve their own difficulties.

When my right hon. Friend rightly raises the danger of Cuban troops in the Horn of Africa, will he seriously consider speaking to the American State Department about the presence of 40,000 American troops in the Guantanamo base in Cuba, against the will of the Cuban people? Most Opposition Members have forgotten that they are there, by might.

There is a long-standing dispute between Cuba and the United States about the status of the Guanta- namo base. It is a reminder of the fact that there are still American troops on that island. That is an issue between the two Governments and not one into which I have any wish to be drawn.

In view of the dangerous behaviour of the Soviet Union and Cuba in the Horn of Africa. following similarly dangerous behaviour in Angola not long ago, what consultations has the right hon. Gentleman had recently with other friendly Governments about the possible use of the political and economic levers that we possess to discourage further dangerous behaviour of that kind in future?

I am against the use of foreign troops in Africa, as I would be against their use in any continent unless it were shown that they were genuinely helping a sovereign State out of temporary difficulties, were not there to alter the balance of power, and were not there on the path of adventurism. We have made it perfectly clear that we do not think that the use by the Soviet Union of surrogate troops, in a way which would change the balance of power and strengthen its influence in the area, is legitimate. But we must face the fact that it is legitimate for the Soviet Union to be involved with African States and to supply arms, and it is possible for any African State to ask for outside help if its territory is attacked. We must achieve a balance in these matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet the Foreign Ministers of the other NATO member countries.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet his NATO colleagues collectively at the NATO ministerial meetings in Washington on 30th and 31st May. He may also meet some of them individually on other occasions before that.

When my right hon. Friend meets the Foreign Ministers of the other NATO countries, will he make it clear to them that Labour Party policy, which is supported by many Labour Members, is to reduce our defence expenditure in line with the average commitment of the other NATO countries, in proportion to our gross domestic product? Will he also bring to their attention the considerable balance of payments burden that this country now carries, due to overseas military commitments, especially in West Germany?

We have not lost sight of the commitment, in our election manifesto, to bring our defence burden closely into line with that of our main European allies. The defence budget for 1978–79, as announced in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, recently published, will be about 4¾ per cent. of our estimated gross domestic product compared with 5 per cent. for the current year, foreseen in last year's Statement. In the five years following 1972–73, defence spending fell in real terms by 4 per cent. while civil programmes increased by 6½ per cent.

Does the hon. Gentleman hope for or expect a different attitude by the French towards NATO membership after the French General Election?

That is a matter for the French, but in terms of practical cooperation we always look to the most effective liaison with French forces that we can achieve.

Has my hon. Friend noticed from the figures in the defence White Paper that if our percentage of GNP spent on arms were reduced to the same average level as that of our allies, excluding the United States, we would be saving nearly £2,000 million a year which we are unnecessarily spending on defence now?

I repeat that our policy objective is to achieve a fairer distribution of the cost burden of the NATO Alliance as a whole between all members. That is a point that we frequently make to our colleagues within it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary of Israel about Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territory in the context of a Middle East settlement; and if he will make a statement.

The Government have been in constant touch with all the parties. I made our views on Israeli settlements in the occupied territories clear when in Israel.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the merciless slaughter of civilians in South Lebanon by the regular armed forces of Israel and the creation of another 100,000 Arab refugees does not seem to indicate that the present Israeli Government are much interested in permanent peace? Does he also agree that the one gesture that that Government could make to prove good faith would be a firm declaration that the settlements will be removed in the context of a final settlement?

I think that the most urgent matter in the conversations taking place between Prime Minister Begin and President Carter is a clarification of what the Israeli Government really understand by Resolution 242 and a reaffirmation that it means withdrawal on all three fronts.

Bearing in mind the part that this country played in the formulation of Resolution 242, may I take it from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he is repudiating Mr. Begin's new and rather extraordinary interpretation, and that withdrawal from the West Bank is part of the withdrawal from all Arab territories?

It is the Government's view, as it has been of successive British Governments, that withdrawal from all three areas—Golan, the West Bank and Sinai—is part of the interpretation of Resolution 242. We have also constantly reiterated our determination that Israel should have secure boundaries. If there are security needs, they should be examined.

What hope does my right hon. Friend really have that the Israeli forces will withdraw from Southern Lebanon, as it has long been a policy of Israel to occupy the territory up to the Litani river?

I do not believe that the Israeli Government wish to occupy the territory up to the Litani. I think that the speed of the withdrawal will be greatly influenced by the effectiveness and strength of the United Nations force to be introduced into Southern Lebanon. That is why I thought it very important that Her Majesty's Government should make a contribution to that force.

In view of the contribution to be made towards restoration of proper Lebanese control of their own area, surely the Government can go a hit further than they have. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the French have offered a parachute battalion to the international force? Surely we can go much further than simply offering support facilities from Cyprus.

We were asked to provide logistic support and we have made available what we think can be made available. The advantage of what we have in Cyprus is that we are already providing logistic support for the United Nations force in Cyprus. It is very convenient, in terms of airfields and ports, for Southern Lebanon, and I think it will provide a safe and secure support base which will make a very important contribution over the next few weeks to the stability of the United Nations force.

Will my right hon. Friend make it abundantly clear to the Israeli Government that it is neither a very moral policy nor, indeed, a very prudent one for Israel or any other country to deal with the problem of terrorist attacks by means of all-out war against a neighbouring State?

I have never believed in the doctrine of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, and I do not believe that international peace is helped by retaliatory action. But it would be idle to pretend that the Israeli Government and people were not very cruelly provoked.

With regard to United Nations Resolution 242, surely it was a previous British Government who took out the word "all" in "all territories". The removal of the word "all" was a British initiative. Withdrawal from the territories, yes—but not all of the territories, necessarily. Is the Foreign Secretary repudiating that commitment by Her Majesty's Government of a previous day, before he was made Foreign Secretary?

I would not dream of repudiating it. It has been supported by successive Governments. "The" referred to "the territories". "All" would mean, in the interpretation, in the wording that was then being discussed, withdrawing to exactly the 1967 boundaries. The removal of the word "all" allowed for marginal adjustments, which I think was the phrase used by Sir Alec Douglas-Home—as he then was—in his speech at Harrogate. Therefore, successive British Governments have accepted that some arguments may take place about security needs in relationship to territory, but not on the issue of withdrawal from all three fronts.

rose—

Order. On this Question, I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Labour Benches who have been staunch supporters of Israel and who continue to be staunch supporters of Israel are, nevertheless, very concerned that the response to the dastardly terrorist attack should have been made in the manner in which it was, that we are not in favour of the invasion of someone else's territory, and that we congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that the Government have taken on this issue and trust that the efforts being made by the Government will help to bring about peace in the Middle East?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know his long-standing concern for Israel and its territorial integrity and strength. I hope that his words will be read and listened to with attention, because I think that they reflect the anxieties of many people at present.

Do not these events provide yet another illustration of the value to this country of maintaining sovereign bases in Cyprus? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he has neither proposals nor a desire to withdraw from those bases?

I believe that there are benefits to this country in the sovereign base areas. The question must be considered in terms of the cost and the various ways in which the sovereign base areas can be used. But this is a concrete example of their effectiveness, as indeed has been the British support for the United Nations peace keeping force inside Cyprus. However, one has to take account of the very heavy financial cost that we bear by our military presence in Cyprus.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on further measures he intends to take towards achieving a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the Rhodesian settlement.

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 make a statement about Rhodesia.

I made the Government's view clear in the debate on Monday.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm today's newspaper reports that the Government accept the new multiracial Executive Council for Rhodesia as the de facto Administration of the territory?

The Government consider this new Executive Council to be illegal, as was the previous regime, but we have to take account of the fact that it exists, as, indeed, we have done with Mr. Smith's regime. When it is appropriate, either officials from my Department or myself will be prepared to discuss matters with the illegal regime.

In the light of the establishment of an interim Government, will the Secretary of State now reconsider the appointment of a permanent mission to Rhodesia, if only to ascertain the views of the Rhodesian people on an internal settlement, in order that the Government's policy may in fact take account of the views inside Rhodesia at least as much as it appears to take account of the views of the Patriotic Front and those outside Rhodesia?

This is an issue to which the Opposition always come back. They must recognise, however, that when dealing with an illegal regime I am not a completely free agent in these matters. There were two officials involved in Salisbury, and it was not my doing that the senior one was removed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman contact his friend, Mr. Andrew Young, and tell him that Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that their policy on Rhodesia has failed, that they are now repenting, and that Her Majesty's Government will now support the forces of moderation and will cease giving encouragement to murderers?

Answer.

While seeking a settlement in Rhodesia, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is as peaceful a settlement as possible? In order to do that, there will be a need to contact the nationalist forces outside the country as well as those inside Rhodesia. Until we can get a copper-bottomed guaranteed settlement that will meet the Six Principles, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that we shall not end economic sanctions?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We shall judge the outcome against the Six Principles and, in particular, draw attention to the Fifth Principle and the Sixth Principle, which are the ones that are highly relevant to any test of opinion. In the meantime, we shall work as hard as we can to involve all the nationalist leaders, both inside and outside the country, and to try to achieve a ceasefire.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the acid test of whether the internal settlement is genuinely intended to transfer power to the African majority is whether security matters will now become the responsibility of the Executive Council and no longer of Mr. Smith exclusively? Does he agree that unless decisions such as the pre-emptive strike against Zambia, which was a politically disastrous move, are matters on which there is some discussion and possibly a power of veto by the three Africans who are members of the four-man Executive Council, there will be no hope of bringing about integration between the freedom fighters and the regular forces of Rhodesia, and no hope of getting the Patriotic Front involved in talks? Unless we can achieve those two things, civil war will be inevitable.

As I understand it, responsibility for the armed forces will be held by the Executive Council. If that is so, it is certainly an improvement from the present situation. But it must be carried much further than that. I think that it will have to be shown in the Executive Council's actions, as the right hon. Gentleman implies, and in the way in which it deals with the whole question of the integration of the liberation fighters.

Has not the predictable and entirely understandable response of the rest of the world to the so-called settlement in Salisbury completely vindicated the Government's position of refusing to welcome this settlement? Will my right hon. Friend make it plain that there can be no reasonable possibility of any settlement in Rhodesia so long as Smith remains a part of any interim Government?

My hon. Friend is quite right that international opinion is a major factor that must be considered. Indeed, it is in the interests of Zimbabwe that it should be considered, because, unless we are able to find a situation in which a settlement is freely and fairly negotiated, there is little doubt that the international community will neither recognise it nor lift sanctions, and that will damage Zimbabwe's future. My hon. Friend is perfectly correct that we should do all that we can to ensure that a settlement is achieved that will be acceptable to the international community, and that is what I am trying to do.

May I return to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler)? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that a major step was taken only yesterday by the setting up of the Executive Council? Does he not now agree that in order to keep properly informed of the developments of the work within Rhodesia and of the activities of the Executive Council, and in order properly to guide the actions of Her Majesty's Government, the need to set up a mission becomes absolutely paramount?

As I have indicated to the right hon. Gentleman, the setting up of a mission is not a decision to be taken by the British Government alone. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] The question is whether it is acceptable to the illegal regime. They happen to be able to control whether people stay in the country. That is a fact that has to be taken into account. There are conditions that they might wish to apply but which I would not be prepared to accept.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the United States Secretary of State.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet Mr. Vance next at the CENTO ministerial meeting in Washington on 19th and 20th April.

Knowing that my right hon. Friend has constant contact with the United States Secretary of State, may I ask whether he will forgive me for once again raising the question of peace in the Middle East? Will he exert what democratic pressures he can on the American Secretary of State to join with him in telling the Israelis that many of their friends throughout the world are steadily being alienated by their stand and that we feel that they must come to an accommodation with the Arab States in the interests of peace in the Middle East? Will he convey to the Israeli Government the view that the utterly disproportionate attack on Southern Lebanon is not a correct form of retaliation, no matter what raid had taken place previously, and that they must disgorge the occupied territories and rediscuss the whole question of the Left Bank?

My right hon. Friend has already dealt very fully with those aspects of the matter in his replies to Questions this afternoon.

Has my hon. Friend noticed that in the course of the last half hour the Foreign Secretary has been asked to engage in critical and possibly hostile dialogue with Singapore, the Soviet Union, Uganda, Ethiopia, Israel. Mr. Andrew Young and some of our allies in NATO, including the United States? Perhaps my right hon. Friend would like to know that some of us have confidence that he will exercise reasonable discrimination.

I think that my right hon. Friend's discrimination is well known. I can also say that his energy is unequalled.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to attend a full meeting of the Council of Ministers.

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

I am due to meet Community Foreign Miinsters at the meeting of the Council of Ministers to be held in Luxembourg on 4th April.

Have my right hon. Friend and his friends in Europe ever discussed the question of coloured people with citizenship rights in the Common Market, which could loosely be called the European sub-continent? Will he confirm that there are several million coloured people in that area, and tell the House that, irrespective of the report of any Select Committee—or anyone else—on these matters, the Treaty of Rome lays down that any of these people can come to this country if they so desire?

There are informal discussions, particularly between Ministers who hold the equivalent of the Home Secretarys position. Several of cur Common Market partners have experience of immigration and multi-racial societies. They have tackled the issue in many ways and with commendable skill. They have had problems, just as we have had, but I think there is much that we can learn from our Community partners about immigration policy and a non-racial society, as, indeed, there is much to learn in many other ways.

In view of the important political aspects on the question of economic and monetary union, are there any proposals for the Council of Ministers to discuss this subject when the right hon. Gentleman is present, as well as the Economic Ministers?

This is being discussed in the Foreign Council as part of the discussion in preparation for the European Council, because the matter tends to be on the agenda of European Council meetings. It has been discussed by Foreign Ministers and will no doubt be discussed in the future.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that if, at the meeting to which he has referred, an agreed date is made for direct elections, the British Government will give an unconditional commitment to go along with it?

Before we can give an absolute commitment we have to be assured that we will have Royal Assent to the Bill.

I will give my right hon. Friend that.

My hon. Friend has assumed this new role, for which he has been striving for some years. I assure him that we shall not be laggards with regard to a firm date, and we are confident that we shall be able to fulfil that date.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to explain to his hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), and other hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side, that the economic future of this country is indissolubly bound up with our membership of the Common Market, just as our security is bound up with our membership of NATO?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that membership of the Community is about all aspects of policy. It is a partnership of nine member States that goes over a whole range of issues—not just foreign policy but domestic issues. By combining together we can add to our strength.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever prohibitions we may make with regard to Indians, Pakistanis or people from Bangladesh, the one thing that is perfectly clear is that any member of the EEC who is brown or dark-skinned cannot be prevented from coming to this country if he so desires?

And bringing his children, up to the age of 21.

Yes, there are times when we must look to the legislation and commitments that we have as members of the Common Market. In this matter I am only too glad to look at the practice of other European countries from which we have something to learn. But that is not exclusive, because I believe they have something to learn from us. The Government are quite convinced that we must stand by the commitments that have been made by successive Governments, particularly the commitments entered into by the Heath Government in 1971 and 1972.

I should like to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). On Monday the Minister of State told the House that the Government would be taking proposals about the date on which direct elections should be held to the forthcoming EEC Summit, but he did not tell us what those proposals would be. Will the Secretary of State please lift the veil? Is not the House of Commons entitled to know when the Government think the first round of these elections should be held?

I believe that there is a specific Question on the Order Paper about this matter, which I do not wish to anticipate. In any case, these will only be discussions. The decision will be taken—at least, it is hoped it will be taken—by the European Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new issues in the field of political co-operation he intends to put on the agenda of the new meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives in developing political co-operation he is planning for the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to raise new issues in political co-operation or initiatives to develop it at present. It is proceeding satisfactorily over a wide field. Political co-operation issues are not normally raised at meetings of the Council, but a Council meeting can be transformed briefly into a meeting in political co-operation, as happened on 7th March, when there was a short discussion on Africa.

Surely the Minister agrees that Europe should seize the opportunity of speaking with one voice with regard to many of the world problems that exist at present. Does he agree that very good subjects would be the Middle East and the Horn of Africa? Will he start the initiative, so that something can be thrashed out and something positive done? Some of us are waiting to hear.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that these are precisely the sort of issues that are constantly kept under review, not only in the formal meetings of the Nine with regard to political cooperation but in regular meetings between officials that take place between those formal meetings. These discussions take place partly in specialised working groups, which deal with crises in specific areas of the world. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no reason to believe that major issues of this sort will not receive priority.

Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider the possibility, together with the other EEC Foreign Ministers, of making friendly representations to the Government of Pakistan concerning the death sentence passed upon former Prime Minister Bhutto? Does the Minister realise that, while in no way wishing to intervene in the internal affairs of Pakistan or in the judicial process, there is deep concern in this country and elsewhere about the implications of that sentence?

My right hon. Friend discussed this matter with the President's foreign affairs adviser earlier this week.

With regard to political co-operation, and since we are still responsible for the affairs of Southern Rhodesia, when my right hon. Friend meets his Foreign Minister colleagues will he try to get them to make collective representations to the new puppet regime in Salisbury that political hangings should cease forthwith?

I am sure that my hon. Friend, who follows these matters with great attention, will have noticed that other members of the Community have been highly critical of developments within Rhodesia in recent weeks and months.

I should like to return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). May I ask the Foreign Secretary to make clear how deeply this country would feel—and what deep effects it might have—if the death sentence were carried out on Mr. Bhutto?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has taken note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with other European Economic Community Foreign Ministers about the latest developments at the Belgrade review conference.

I most recently discussed the situation at Belgrade with other EEC Foreign Ministers at our political co-operation meeting held in Copenhagen on 14th February.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of people in the Soviet Union have been held in prison for many months on trumped-up charges when in reality they have been imprisoned simply because they have attempted to monitor the performance of their own Government with regard to international agreements freely entered into? Will the EEC countries make it clear to the Soviet Union that if, after the end of the Belgrade conference, these people were to be put on a show trial, that would be a flagrant breach of the Soviet Union's international obligations?

The Soviet Government—both at the conference and by their knowledge of the positions taken by European countries—are under no illusion that, following the Belgrade conference, any action on their part which appears to run totally counter to the provisions of the Final Act will have a damaging effect on the whole of the CSCE process and the run-up to the planned conference in Madrid. There is no room at all for doubt in the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he remains satisfied with the progress being made towards the enlargement of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the Council of Ministers on the Community's enlargement for the addition of the existing three applicant countries.

My right hon. Friend has made clear in the Council of Ministers the Government's view that, as well as maintaining the momentum in the accession negotiations with Greece, more rapid progress should be made in the Community's preparations for negotiations with Portugal and Spain.

Will the Minister tell us whether the Commission still hopes to complete the substantial part of the Greek negotiations between now and the beginning of 1979? Is this a realistic target? Will he reconfirm that there will be no attempt to link the Greek negotiations with those for Spain and Portugal?

I assure the hon. Member that we are looking at each application on its merits. There are interrelating points between the applications. We hope to arrive at the final stages of the Greek negotiations by the end of this year.

Since the negotiations inevitably are proving more complicated than was previously expected, for all three countries, and although we all wish to achieve enlargement of the EEC, does the Minister agree that it will be a great pity if significant internal developments in the Community are delayed? Undoubtedly the three acceding countries will be welcome, but the Community must look to its own internal developments even while the neogtiations are continuing with the three applicants.

The hon. Member has touched on an important point. The reorganisation of the common agricultural policy and of Mediterranean agriculture are issues that affect the present Community and should not be linked to the problems of the acceding members.

Does the Minister agree that if these three countries are to come into the Community—and I am not opposed to their joining—we should make it absolutely clear that we will not pay, through the CAP, for structural changes in agriculture that are necessary in those countries? Does he agree that we pay far too much already for the CAP? All this must be clearly understood by the applicant Governments; indeed, this must be a condition of their joining.

As the Minister of Agriculture made very clear earlier this week, we are paying a disproportionate amount of the cost of the CAP and we are determined that it shall be revised. The accession of new members will be seen in the context of a much-improved agricultural policy.

Will the Minister undertake that enlargement of the EEC will not result in further encroachments into our overstretched fishing grounds?

We are determined to stand firm on issues of crucial importance to our fishing industry in our approach to the common fisheries policy. After such a policy is agreed, and by the time new members have acceded, we hope that the Community will have faced the British fishing problems and the fact that we are determined that the British fishing industry will not carry any heavier burdens.

Will the Minister assure us that negotiations for the entry of Portugal will not be entangled with those of Spain, as the Spanish application has not yet arrived on the table? Can he give us an approximate date when the negotiations will begin and when the Commission will submit a document? Will it be before the Summer Recess?

As I said earlier, we are looking at each application on its merits. On Portugal, the opinion published by the Commission is expected in the spring, and the opinion on Spain is not expected until the end of this year or early next year.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Economic Community Commission.

My right hon. Friend is due to meet the President of the EEC Commission at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 4th April.

Will the Minister remind the President of the EEC that Shetland voted against remaining in the Community? As this House seems to give priority to the rights of Shetland, when does he intend to table a Bill to enable Shetland to come out of the Common Market?

That is not primarily for the Foreign Office.

When he meets the President, will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary point out that there have been a number of occasions on which hon. Members in this House have objected strongly to senseless measures of harmonisation proposed by the Commission? May I point out to him that many of the much larger measures of harmonisation are against the Government's views about the powers of national Governments and of this House? Does he agree that measures of this kind are a waste of time and that the Commission would be better employed on more constructive proposals?

We are against the concept of harmonisation for harmonisation's sake, because that can develop into a bureaucrats' picnic. The governing criterion on harmonisation is whether it results in policies that are more in the interests of the British people and those of other member States.

When the Minister next meets the President, will he draw his attention to an article in today's edition of The Times about the state of affairs in Addis Abbaba, and suggest to him that the most destabilising effects there are a combination of Kalashnikovs, Karl Marx and barbarism? Will he impress upon the President that this should be taken into account by the Community when formulating its policy on Africa?

The President reads The Times regularly. I am sure that he will come to his own conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the European Economic Community on the future location of the European Parliament.

The question was raised at the Foreign Affairs Council in January. There was agreement that under Article 216 of the Treaty of Rome the permanent site of the Assembly is a matter for decision

"by common accord of the Governments of the Member States".

If the European parliamentarians themselves decide to settle on Brussels and abandon the exhausting tours to Strasbourg and Luxembourg will the British Government support them?

The President of the Assembly made it clear in correspondence that the Assembly's only concern with accommodation in Brussels was to secure adequate working conditions. This in no way prejudices the site of the future Parliament. The location of the Parliament is a matter for common accord of the Governments of member States.

Would it not be a good idea for the offices to remain in Brussels but the Assembly to be in some other place—preferably Strasbourg? Should we not drop Luxembourg?

All kinds of people have all kinds of ideas about what is a good idea and what is not. The decision must be made by the member States.

Will the British Government take the opportunity to discuss the location of other European institutions? When the European Export Bank is formed in due course, would it not be a good idea for it to be located in London?

That is a very valuable point. The hon. Member will know from his own experience in the European Assembly how seriously we take the question of the location of certain European institutions.

Will the Minister confirm that the Council of Ministers can take no decision or initiative on its own and that the initial proposal will have to come from the newly-elected Parliament in due course?

The Assembly can make any proposal that it wants. A decision will be made by common accord of the Council of Ministers, which has the power to do so under Article 216.

Since France has maintained that it will veto any decision that is not in line with its wishes, and since Brussels is likely to do the same and Luxembourg feels equally deeply about this issue, will the Minister suggest that it would be a very good idea to transfer the European Parliament to the constituency of Jarrow?

I readily recognise my right hon. Friend's interest. I was rather thinking of the National Exhibition Centre, in my constituency. That might have some use in this respect. I know that there have been reports in the Press, but I must point out that neither France nor Luxembourg has given any formal indications about the European Parliament. The site of the Assembly concerns both France and Luxembourg, of course, and their views will be taken into account along with those of other member States.