asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in view of President Carters decision to defer development of the neutron bomb, he will make it his policy that in no circumstances will Great Britain consent to the storing or deployment of neutron bombs in Great Britain.

President Carter has made it clear that his ultimate decision will depend on how the Russians respond to his call for them to show restraint in their arms programmes and force deployments. The Government support this position. No question of storing or deploying the neutron bomb therefore arises at this time.

I am glad to hear that from the Secretary of State. I am sure that many of us on the Government Benches will agree that he should be encouraged to continue to resist the pressure put upon him by the Opposition to agree to the development of this nuclear weapon—a weapon which would have only disastrous consequences, resulting in national suicide and a possible end to European civilisation. Although President Carter has said that the Soviet decision not to proceed with the neutron bomb is not a matter of significance, does not my right hon. Friend recognise that if the Soviet Union, depressed by this response, were to decide to develop the neutron bomb, both he and the President would regard it as a matter of considerable significance? In view of that, will my right hon. Friend welcome the Soviet decision now?

I do not hold the same view as my hon. Friend about the significance of the neutron bomb. I believe that it is a development of an existing weapons system. I think that it was a balanced judgment and a right judgment not to deploy it at present, because the Soviet Union had attached a great deal of importance to it. Much of this, I believe, was propaganda, but the fact that the Russians had attached importance to it meant that we had to take it into account in creating the right climate for disarmament this year with the United Nations' Special Session. I am hopeful that it will contribute to improving the climate for disarmament.

I must appeal to hon. Members not to ask long supplementary questions.

Does not the Secretary of State think it odd that his hon. Friends who are campaigning against the neutron bomb are campaigning against a smaller, cleaner nuclear weapon? Therefore, may we infer that they are in favour of bigger and dirtier weapons? Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the neutron bomb is, in fact, an anti-tank weapon, and that there is therefore no question of its ever being deployed in the United Kingdom?

It is true that the main military argument for deploying the neutron bomb is that it would deter a concentration of tanks. That is the main significance of the military argument. I think that the arguments about clean and dirty bombs are very difficult. None of us wants to see nuclear weapons deployed, ever but we must recognise that this is part of our system of deterrents, and, while it is, we must look at the modernisation of the weapons system. At this moment I believe that both qualitatively and quantitatively any increases in nuclear weapons should be avoided.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that possession of a neutron bomb, by its very nature, would imply that we were committed to first use of nuclear weapons in the event of conflict? Is this not a horrifying prospect, and will he bear it in mind in future discussions?

My hon. Friend has put his finger on the main argument against the neutron bomb, which is the question whether it would reduce the nuclear threshold. That is a serious argument. A lot of what is being said about the actual technical arrangements of the bomb is not so serious. Personally, I think that the whole question of first use of nuclear weapons is a very delicate decision, which could only ever be taken under strict political control.

Will the Secretary of State condemn the action of France in going ahead with the neutron bomb? Is he prepared to make a clear condemnation today?

As I understand it, the French have categorically denied that they have let off a neutron bomb, or that they have any intention of so doing.

Will the Foreign Secretary say whether he thinks that the European Powers have adequately expressed their views to the United States on this major subject? Bearing in mind that, as has been said, the neutron bomb represents a potentially very important defence weapon against an overwhelming build-up of conventional armaments by the Soviet Union on the central European front, which directly affects the interests of Europeans, have he and his colleagues in Europe adequately briefed the United States on their views?

There was the closest consultation on this, and over quite a long period of months. The final decision was taken by the President, as was inevitably right, and I think that in taking that decision he was influenced by the feeling that there was a more optimistic climate for disarmament measures. I share that optimism. I believe that 1978 will see a SALT II agreement and a comprehensive test ban agreement, and I am also hopeful that we shall have progress in the MBFR talks in Vienna.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now raise at the United Nations the continuing presence of Soviet and Cuban military personnel in Angola and Ethiopia as a potential threat to world peace.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise in the Security Council of the United Nations as a threat to world peace the presence of Russian and Cuban troops in the Horn of Africa and the continuing fighting betwen Ethiopia and Eritrea.

The Government have made clear their concern at the scale and nature of Soviet and Cuban military involvement in Africa and share the view of the OAU that disputes within Africa should be settled by African States themselves. We have made it clear that we believe the Security Council could play a helpful role provided there were sufficient international backing to make it effective.

Does the Foreign Secretary seriously doubt that if 17,000 British or American troops had been in Angola or Ethiopia the matter would have been raised in the United Nations months ago as a threat to world peace? Does he accept that brave speeches at banquets at the Mansion House are no justification for not raising the matter at the United Nations, where it really makes a difference? What has to happen before the present British Government will raise this matter in the Security Council?

A sovereign country is entitled to ask others in to defend its borders. I think, therefore, that we have to make a distinction between the presence of Cubans in Ethiopia, in relation to Somalia, and any involvement of the Cubans in the internal issues of Ethiopia involved in Eritrea. In that case I have made my views very clear—that I think it would be totally unjustified. But it is a very dangerous precedent to establish that no sovereign nation can invite in troops from outside. That is something that we would not wish to hold.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that at a recent meeting held in this building with an all-party group of Members and the Cuban Ambassador, the ambassador made it clear to the Members present that should Ethiopian troops set foot outside the territory of Ethiopia, Cuba would withdraw all military personnel from Ethiopia, just as Cuba did from Somalia when Somalian troops invaded Ethiopia?

I have received that assurance, and I am grateful that there has been no major territorial incursion across the Somalia-Ethiopia border, but the Cubans have got to recognise that hitherto they have been supporting the Eritrean freedom fighters and that it would be a major change of policy if they were now suddenly to involve themselves in military disputes. I detect that they are having discussions with the Eritreans—I note that it has been reported in Havana—and I hope that they will use their influence to mediate to get a negotiated settlement.

Having just returned from Namibia, may I put to the Secretary of State a question which arises out of the presence of the Soviet and Cuban forces in Angola? Now that the South African Government have accepted the Western plan for Namibia, will the Western Powers be pressing the Soviet Union to use its undoubted influence with SWAPO, which operates from Angolan bases, so that SWAPO will also accept the Western plan and renounce its policy of intimidation by assassination?

I welcome the South African decision, and I hope that it is followed by SWAPO. It is fair to say that Angola has, throughout, played a constructive role in the discussions. It obviously made no secret of the fact that it supports SWAPO, but it has indicated that it would like a negotiated settlement, and that is hopeful.

Faced, however, as he is, with increasingly bellicose noises from the Opposition about the presence of Soviet troops in various countries, does my right hon. Friend ever receive any concrete suggestions from the Opposition Front Bench on how those troops should be removed?

It is important to keep the whole question in proportion. I am very worried about the effects of Soviet troops in Africa and the ability to switch the balance of power in Africa very rapidly, as happened in the Horn of Africa. On the other hand, we have to recognise that they have the right to be in Africa, as we do. What I object to is that the Soviet influence in Africa, as in other parts of the world, is not devoted to the welfare of the citizens through development aid and through humanitarian help, but a large portion of their financial effort and backing is made through military supplies.

Whilst fully supporting the Foreign Secretary's speech at the Mansion House, in which he condemned the destructive Soviet and Cuban military intervention in Africa, may I say to him that it is deeds rather than words that will carry credibility with the Soviet Union? Will he now tell the House, particularly in the light of President Brezhnev's speech recently, in which he said that Soviet military intervention in Africa would be stepped up, what action the British Government propose to take to expose at the United Nations the nature of the Soviet and Cuban threat to international peace in the Horn of Africa and in other parts of Africa?

One can go to the United Nations but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, there is very little point in going to the Security Council—which is what we envisaged over the Ethiopian and Somalian dispute—if that means having the whole of the African group against us. The OAU has played a useful and important role in mediating between Ethiopia and Somalia. We have to get this whole question in proportion. Our best way of combating Soviet influence in Africa is not to put ourselves in the wrong, and not to do what a lot of Opposition Members wanted me to do, which was to support Somalia when it put its troops into the Ogaden.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay a visit to China.

I have renewed my predecessor's invitation to the Chinese Foreign Minister to visit the United Kingdom. I also myself hope to visit China before too long. Our relations with China are increasingly important and substantial.

In view of the fact that the Republic of China is one of the few countries that is currently taking seriously the international military threat posed by the Soviet Union, have the Government given any consideration to an anti-Soviet defence pact with the Chinese?

The question of a defence pact does not arise. The Chief of Defence Staff will pay an official visit to China from 27th April to 3rd May. This will be the first visit of a United Kingdom Chief of Defence Staff to China. The purpose of the visit is to have a broad exchange of views on defence matters, and I welcome it.

Before my right hon. Friend meets the Chinese Foreign Minister, will be undertake to investigate the possibility of presenting proposals to him for a cultural agreement, perhaps on the lines of that between France and China, which would regularise the very welcome exchanges between this country and Peking? Will he also undertake, before that meeting, to talk to representatives of the Sinological community in this country, such as the British Association for Chinese Studies, to make sure that those people in particular get the most out of any such agreement?

I shall certainly look sympathetically at the suggestions that my hon. Friend has made. It is my intention to improve our relations with China. They have been steadily improving, and there is room for more improvement, for greater commercial exchange, and for greater cultural, scientific and technological exchange. I wish to deepen our relations with that very important country.

In view of China's close geographical and diplomatic links with Pakistan, will the Foreign Secretary consider organising a diplomatic initiative to ensure that the former Pakistan Prime Minister, Mr. Bhutto, gets a fair trial and is also given more humane treatment than would appear to be the case at present?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity. The House knows that I have had discussions about this issue with the President of Pakistan's foreign affairs adviser. I think that at present the question is under appeal.

Will the Foreign Secretary now give an assurance that although he will do everything possible to improve our relationships with China, it will not be at the expense of our relationship with the Soviet Union?

My hon. Friend asks a serious question. It is not in the interests of this country to make such a dramatic shift in our policy that would alienate the second most powerful country in the world. However, I do not think that the Soviet Union would have any standing in intervening in our willingness to improve our relationship with China. We shall make our decisions on that relationship on their merits and on what is in the best interests of Britain.

What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to encourage contacts and understanding between the United Kingdom and China outside Government level? Is he aware of the threatened cut-backs in Chinese and Asian studies at Scots universities? Will he encourage his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science to provide funds to ensure that these important studies are maintained?

I shall consider that. There was a long tradition of Chinese expertise in Britain which may well have tended to dwindle in recent years. It is important to ensure that it is built up. My hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) is a distinguished example of someone who understands and knows China extremely well.

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

I have nothing to add to the reply my right hon. Friend gave the hon. Gentleman on 22nd March.

As the present contacts between the United States Government and the Governments in the area do not appear to be making satisfactory progress, does the Foreign Secretary consider that this might be an opportune time for the European Community to bring forward an initiative aimed at bringing the negotiations back into the international arena? Will the hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to confirm what is now generally agreed, namely, that it is essential, in order to have a settlement, that Palestinian rights should be recognised?

Heads of Government and Foreign Secretaries discussed this matter during the recent meeting of the European Council. After that meeting the Presidency gave a full account of the discussion to the Egyptians and others. The Egyptians expressed themselves as well satisfied with that which had taken place. Of course, we recognise that the interests and needs of the Palestinians are factors that have to be taken into account if we are to get a lasting settlement.

What contribution to peace in the Middle East was the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon, bearing in mind that several thousand people were killed and over 200,000 were made refugees? Would it not seem to indicate that Menachem Begin, the Israeli Prime Minister, is as great a terrorist now as ever he was?

Anyone with an ounce of compassion must be concerned about the suffering that preceded it. We, together with other members of the Nine, have called upon the Israelis to withdraw from South Lebanon in accordance with the resolutions passed at the United Nations.

Why should Israel be required to rely upon great-Power territorial guarantees? What use are those guarantees to Israel, compared with secure and defensible frontiers?

The only lasting and effective solution to the dispute between the Arabs and Israel will be found by the Arabs and Israelis working together and committing themselves to guaranteeing the future effectively.

Am I not right in thinking that neither the West Bank nor the Gaza Strip is the recognised territory of any sovereign State but that both are part of the Palestine Mandate, an international trust, and, therefore, subject to negotiations as anticipated by Resolution 242, which requires changes to provide secure and recognised borders?

Resolution 242 requires secure borders but also calls upon Israel to be prepared to withdraw on all three fronts.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations Security Council as a threat to peace in the Middle East the continued presence of Israeli troops in Southern Lebanon.

No, Sir.

In that case, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to press the United Nations for action to ensure the return to their homes with full compensation of the 200,000 refugees created by this Israeli military operation, bearing in mind that that would set no precedent since this would be entirely in line with United Nations resolutions in regard to refugees in this part of the world for 30 years, although none of them has ever been implemented?

The humanitarian problems facing refugees in this area must be a major consideration for us all. But the first priority, to which we are all committed to find a solution, is to re-establish peace and security on that frontier.

Does the Minister feel that it would be appropriate at this stage to remind the House of the provocation that Israel suffered, which led to the incursion into Lebanon? Does he also feel that it would be useful if those who are pressing this matter today were to call for these States to recognise Israel as a State and to give guarantees that there will be no future incursions of a terrorist nature across Israel's borders?

No one can condone the terrorist activity that preceded the invasion of South Lebanon. Indeed, this Government have made plain how disgusted they were by the whole episode. If we wish to find a lasting solution in the Middle East, a willingness by the Arab States to recognise Israel's right to existence and to guarantee it would help forward that solution, without doubt.

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps there is a prior right of recognition of the Palestinians, whose land has been stolen.

I have already said, in answer to a previous question, that the legitimate rights and interests of the Palestinian people are factors which have to be taken into account if we are to find a lasting solution.

Further to the question posed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen-shire, East (Mr. Henderson), does the Minister agree that the demand for an evacuation of Israeli troops from Southern Lebanon would become unanswerable only if there were sufficient guarantees that such an evacuation would not lead to a renewal of terrorist incursions into Israeli villages?

I agree that the greater the speed with which the United Nations interim force in Lebanon can be put in place with the resources at its disposal to make its work effective, the more convincing will be the case that there will be no threat or danger to security in that area.

Does the Minister agree that, given the persistence and the threat of war in the Middle East during the last 30 years and the present wretched situation in the Eastern Mediterranean, the policy followed by the United States, the USSR, France and the United Kingdom of supplying large quantities of armaments to every nation State in the Middle East has proved to be a disastrous failure for the peoples of the Middle East and that the United Kingdom is in duty bound to take some initiative to put an end to this murderous traffic?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that any nation which exports or sells arms to any part of the world must take fully into account the political considerations of such activity and whether it is likely to lead to greater prospects of peace and stability or to disrupt the prospects of stability in particular areas.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, in view of the economic importance to the United Kingdom of the presence in London of the headquarters of international commodity organisations, when he will state his decision on sponsorship of the establishment in London of a world commodities centre, so that the organisation already in the United King dom will have a clear picture of how to deal with its present accommodation problems, and also so that other new commodity organisations, such as copper, will have inducement to establish their headquarters in London in the future.

My right hon. Friend received the executive heads of the London-based commodity organisations last month, when they presented him with a useful memorandum setting out their difficulties. He has instructed his officials to work on this question urgently. Ministers will be meeting to consider the matter when the necessary preliminary study has taken place.

I declare an interest, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that other European Governments are actively encouraging likely new commodity organisations to set up in their capitals? Further, is he aware that we shall have to offer real incentives to persuade such organisations to come to Great Britain and to sort themselves out in a beneficial way to the British economy?

We are very much aware that other countries are anxious to attract these organisations to their capitals. That is one of the reasons why we have taken the proposal seriously. I agree that it is an important and imaginative idea. That is why we have been having discussions with the heads of the organisations. That is also why my right hon. Friend has seen the heads of the organisations, and why we hope to be able to reach a conclusion shortly.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Parliamentary Association for World Government, which is an all-party group, has been encouraging the project? Is he further aware that there is a need for urgency? Does he agree that it would be a great thing if a world commodity trade centre were set up in London, which would lead to international co-operation and bring great economic benefit to Britain?

I am aware of the association's interest in this matter. I was involved in it myself at an earlier stage. One of the proposals is precisely to establish a single world commodity centre in this country. That is one of the matters that we are discussing with the commodity organisations.

If such a centre were to be established, would not Aberdeen be a better place for it than London?

One of our assets—this answers precisely the supplementary question raised by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—is that London is an extremely attractive centre for these organisations, for various reasons. London happens to be an important commercial centre and a centre for commodity markets. I do not think that Aberdeen can provide a suitable alternative.

Rubbish.

I support the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker). I add that an early intervention may be necessary, bearing in mind that our past experience of giving great and deep thought to these matters over a protracted period has sometimes landed us without the baby that we wanted to get. Does the hon. Gentleman recall the problems that we had with the European Patent Organisation and our regrets that ensued from our rather late entry into the discussions?

We are well aware of the urgency. I think that the House will agree that we have treated the matter with some urgency. It is only a few weeks ago that the commodity organisations presented their proposal to us. We have a specific, concrete proposal, which we are considering as urgently as we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the latest charges of corruption in Hong Kong.

On 7th April 20 serving Hong Kong police officers, four retired police officers and two Customs and Excise inspectors received summonses to appear in court on corruption charges. The Hong Kong Government remain determined to eradicate corruption from the territory. In this they have the full support of Her Majesty's Government.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the whole status and credibility of Hong Kong is undermined by these charges of corruption, especially when they concern police officers? Will he ask my right hon. Friend to have talks urgently with the Hong Kong Government to ensure that we get to the bottom of the corruption in Hong Kong?

I entirely agree that this is a major and serious problem. I assure my hon. Friend that we are in continuous contact with the Hong Kong Government on the matter. He may be interested to know that there have been 260 prosecutions and 130 convictions of police officers on corruption charges since the Independent Commission against Corruption was established three or four years ago.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the commission has had a dramatic effect on corruption in general, and especially on syndicated corruption?

I believe that the commission believes that it has largely eradicated large-scale syndicated corruption of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think that there has been a significant change in Hong Kong as a result of the commission's activities. It would be an incredible task for it totally to eradicate corruption in a place such as Hong Kong, but there has been substantial progress over the past three years or four years.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent dismissals from the Royal Hong Kong Police, and on the present state of morale of that force.

Notices of compulsory retirement under Colonial Regulation 55 were served on 118 officers of the Royal Hong Kong Police force on 7th April 1978. The force reacted calmly to this action, and continues to carry out its duties effectively.

Will the Minister confirm that since those events there has been a very welcome reduction in the crime rate and an increase in the confidence of the public in the Hong Kong police force? Further, will he tell the House what recommendations the Home Office police team in the colony has made and what is being done to give effect to them to increase the administrative back-up for the force?

I confirm that generally the situation in Hong Kong regarding the police and public support for the police are very satisfactory at the present time. I think that recent actions have helped to bring about that situation.

Is the inadequacy of the Hong Kong police force a reason why child labour continues to be employed on a large scale and why so many sweat shops continue to exist in Hong Kong?

I think that my hon. Friend knows that the regulations governing the employment of child labour and other conditions of work in Hong Kong have been progressively and dramatically improved in the last year or so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any progress has been achieved during the recent discussions between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Spain concerning Gibraltar and the outstanding differences between the two countries.

My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the report on his meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister on 15th March which he gave to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) on 22nd March.

Does my hon. Friend realise that we understand the strategic value of Gibraltar? Does he appreciate that this sordid business has gone on since 1704—over 250 years ago? Does he further realise that the true indigenous people of Gibraltar are Spaniards? Does he agree that it is high time that we came to an amicable arrangement?

Our basic position remains unchanged. Naturally we want to see the best possible relationships between Gibraltar and Spain, but as a Government we are not prepared to envisage any developments which will not be endorsed by and are not acceptable to the people of Gibraltar.

Will the Minister confirm the last point that he made, namely, that no change whatsoever in the status of Gibraltar can take place without the wholehearted and total support of the people of Gibraltar?

Our position is as it has always been. We are not prepared to envisage any changes which are not acceptable to the people of Gibraltar.

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

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

As my right hon. Friend is not planning to go to Moscow at the moment, will he now protest at the continued imprisonment of members of the Moscow-Helsinki monitoring committee? In particular, can he tell the House anything of the fate of Anatole Shcharansky, who has been held incommunicado for over 12 months?

My right hon. Friend and the Government generally have made known their concern on these questions many times in this House and on other occasions. During the Belgrade conference there was prolonged discussion about matters of this kind. We are well aware of the situation of Mr. Shcharansky, and opportunity is taken on appropriate occasions to make known our concern.

In view of the fact that 4 million or 5 million individuals inside the Soviet Union can and do listen regularly to the BBC, will the Minister ensure that, within the resources available for overseas broadcasts, greater priority is given to the size of transmitters and other facilities for the BBC to continue its transmissions there?

I agree that the facilities and transmitters available to the BBC's overseas broadcasts are matters of considerable concern to us. These matters were commented on in the CPRS report about overseas representation. I assure the hon. Gentleman that discussions are going on with a view to improving those facilities.

Will my hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State, when he goes to Moscow on some future occasion, to tell the Russian Government that many Labour Members want peace, friendship, detente and the best possible relations with the Soviet Union but that it is impossible for us to understand why ordinary working peole who want to create free and independent trade unions, separate from the State—free in the sense that we understand trade unions—are sometimes put in mental institutions and arrested for trying to do something which in this country and in most countries in Western Europe is accepted as normal procedure?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that the Soviet Government will take note of the views that he has expressed today and on previous occasions in the House on this question. The use of mental institutions as a means of imprisoning or keeping out of action people who express their own opinions, and, above all, people who simply try to perform the task of trade union leaders, is totally unacceptable to us in this House. I know that my right hon. Friend has heard what my hon. Friend said and will take account of it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with the United States Government on securing agreement on policy on Rhodesia.

Mr. Vance and I spent several days together in Africa recently and had further discussions this week. We are in complete agreement concerning our joint policy towards Rhodesia and will continue to work closely together in our efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement.

As one who previously did not oppose sanctions against Rhodesia, may I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he thinks it is time for himself and the Government to take an initiative at the United Nations to get sanctions removed against Rhodesia in order to give sup port to the now multi-racial Government there, especially in view of the fact that there is need for a counterbalance against the forces surrounding Rhodesia?

I recognise the hon. Gentleman's stand on this issue, but I do not think that it would be wise to take the course he suggests. Apart from anything else, it would not be accepted by the other member States. Furthermore, I do not think that it would be justified on its merits. I believe that that issue would have to be faced, as I have already said to the House, if we were satisfied that the Fifth Principle had been carried out, if there had been a transfer of power, and if a new Government had been elected and independence established. In those circumstances we would have to decide whether to recognise and whether to lift sanctions.

rose—

Order. Despite the time, I intend to call one more hon. Member from the Government side and then the Opposition Front Bench speaker, and I shall add the time taken by them to the end of Question Time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the internal settlement was brought about by the Smith regime only as a result of pressure brought to bear by the Patriotic Front? Would it not be a recipe for continuing war and disaster in Southern Africa if we were to withdraw sanctions or go any way towards recognition of that so-called internal settlement?

I have no doubt that there have been a number of pressures which have brought about the movement that has taken place—in which, I regret, the need for armed fighting and a continuation of such fighting has been a factor. But I do not think this House should underestimate the effects of United Nations sanctions. I believe that after a period of 12 years they, too, have begun to bite.

I applaud the efforts of the right hon. Gentleman and the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, to secure a peaceful solution in Rhodesia. However, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that his persistent commitment to the Anglo-American plan is bound to undermine the potential fruition of the settlement reached between Mr. Smith and the three black leaders? Will he please now give some kind of support to ensuring that that which represents at present by far the most likely system to bring peace to that country will be carried forward with help and not with hindrance?

It is not my job to hinder anybody. My job is to try to seek a wider measure of agreement. One way of achieving that agreement is to bring about a cease fire. I keep coming back to the issue of a ceasefire because that is the crucial element that is missing in the internal settlement. That requires the participation of all the nationalist leaders in negotiations. Without it, I believe that there will be continued conflict and that it will be very much harder to hold fair and free elections, harder to get international acceptance, and certainly harder for Zimbabwe to become a prosperous independent country.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the next meeting of the EEC Foreign Ministers Council to take place.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend a meeting of the Council of the EEC.

The next EEC Foreign Affairs Council meeting will be in Brussels on 2nd May.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the Common Market leaders in this run-up period to these "phoney" direct elections, which are supposed to take place next year, that there is another softening-up process beginning in the use of slush fund moneys in the Common Market to attract political activists and rank-and-file members from all political parties in this country with the offer of free holidays to the Common Market on supposed fact-finding visits? Is it not remarkable that among all the talk of economy in this country there is never any shortage of money for Common Market brainwashing?

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept one of the invitations that have been sent out. If he has not had an invitation, I shall try to exercise whatever influence I have.

Some people have integrity.

These are meant to be informational visits.

I am not going on the "gravy train."

It is an opportunity for a two-way exchange of views. If my hon. Friend, with his well-known views, goes to the EEC, he may win some converts.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether, at the next political co-operation meeting or a subsequent meeting, consideration will be given to co-ordination of European policy in respect of the worrying situation in the Horn of Africa?

Yes, Sir; this matter is discussed in political co-operation meetings. There has recently been a tendency to hold political co-operation meetings, if not formally at least informally, at every meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers. This is a welcome development. The subject has been discussed in the past, and I am sure that it will be discussed fairly soon.

In view of the increasing importance of world trade, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, when he next meets his colleagues in the Council of Ministers, he will tell them that there are an increasing number of people in this country who view the EEC's world trading practices as similar to those adopted by the European trading States before 1914, particularly in dumping surpluses of grain, sugar and milk products irresponsibly on the world market? Does he agree that these practices are not international in the sense in which that word has always been understood in this House and in this country?

Our general aim on the common agricultural policy is progressively to reduce real support prices in respect of those needed by efficient producers to bring about a better balance of supply and demand. We would like to see an even tougher approach than the Commission has proposed for products in structural surplus, particularly milk.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that in any fishing negotiations with third countries the 50 miles around our shores will not be used as a bargaining tool?

The hon. Lady can be assured that we will uphold the interests of the fishing industry. We have never seen fit to trade this off in relation to any other EEC issues. We have treated the matter on its merits and have held to our position. We shall continue to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman use the occasion of this meeting to seek to secure from the Council of Ministers positive and unanimous action to secure provision, in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention, of a condition making the receipt of economic aid conditional on the observance of the fundamental human rights enshrined in articles 3 to 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

I have long made clear to the House that that is the objective of Her Majesty's Government. We may have some difficulty in persuading all our Community partners, but it is an anomalous situation, to say the least, and very disadvantageous for the Community that there is no legal way to end aid to a country that may have committed flagrant abuses of human rights. All we are saying is that if the Community were to act in unanimity, it should be able to review a commitment entered into under the Convention. That should be one of the objectives in the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.

When my right hon. Friend attends this meeting, will he remind his European colleagues that since we joined the EEC our trade deficit has grown to over £10,000 million, which is equivalent to what we have had to borrow from the World Bank? Is it not time that the Community began to live up to what its members told us would happen to our economy if only we joined?

We are concerned at the relative contribution that we pay in comparison with other Community countries, particularly when taken against our relative wealth. One way of achieving this is to improve our own competitiveness and sell more. We need to examine some of the financial arrangements that bear very heavily on this country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say something about the Community's attitude on Turkey, which is now becoming increasingly important? In particular, what is the view of Her Majesty's Government and our partners about the supply of arms to Turkey by the United States and her European allies, including ourselves?

Turkey is a member of NATO and as such has to be considered in a special category, but I think that there are concerns—this has certainly influenced arms policy—that Turkey has had difficult relations with another associate in NATO, and in particular there is the problem of Cyprus. I think that we should take these issues on their merits. We should look at Turkey as a member of the Alliance and consider what are its genuine defence needs as a part of that Alliance. Too great a linkage of these issues would be dangerous, but I am not saying that we can totally ignore some of these other political factors.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent consultations he has had with fellow Foreign Ministers in the member States of the EEC about the Middle East.

I am in regular contact with my colleagues of the Nine about developments in the Middle East.

In view of the contacts that European leaders had with the Governments of the Arab States and Isreal following the recent European Summit, and the difficulties that the American efforts appear to be running into at the present time, will the Foreign Secretary reconsider the statement made by the Minister of State earlier this afternoon that the time is not appropriate for a major European initiative in order to bring the whole subject back into the international arena?

I do not think that it is the right time for a major initiative. I think that the dust needs to settle and that people need to consider carefully what compromise they think is necessary in the present situation. There is no case for an initiative at this moment. There is a case for serious thought about the consequences of not entering into serious negotiations.

Will my right hon. Friend say a little more about consultations with EEC colleagues concerning Cyprus, particularly in view of the fact that both Greece and Turkey are anxious to come closer to the Community? Surely this is a major matter that should be discussed among EEC members.

It is discussed, and I do not rule out the possibility that we shall feel it right to take some action at some stage. But at the moment the main responsibility—it is a very difficult one—rests on the Secretary-General of the United Nations in deciding whether to call another meeting for inter-communal talks on the basis of the proposals put forward by the Turkish Government.

Having earlier this afternoon heard the Foreign Secretary's hon. Friend condemn terrorism in the Middle East, may I ask the Foreign Secretary, the next time he meets the EEC Foreign Ministers, to make it clear to them that Her Majesty's Government equally condemn terrorism in Rhodesia?

I have made it clear that I deplore terrorist acts anywhere in the world. If the hon. Gentleman has not heard that, he has not been a very frequent attender in this House.

May I bring the subject back to the Arab-Israeli conflict and remind my right hon. Friend that we have all been waiting 30 years for the dust to settle, and that there is no evidence that it is likely to settle without some initiatives?

Activism in international affairs is always easy to undertake, but I believe that there are times when it is wiser to let these issues be resolved by careful thought. It is well known that there is a major area of disagreement on the interpretation of Resolution 242 of the United Nations and on whether it applies to all three fronts—the West Bank, Sinai and the Golan Heights. In the judgment of Her Majesty's Government, it was always intended that it should apply on all three fronts. I believe that until that issue is resolved it will be very difficult to get into serious negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to attend a meeting of the Economic and Social Committee of the Community.

None, Sir. The Committee normally invites Ministers only from the country holding the Presidency.

Would it not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to attend such a meeting in order to demonstrate the British Government's support for the valuable work done in this institution in recent months under British chairmanship, not least in bringing together unions and employers to discuss common problems at EEC level?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation. The Government attach the greatest possible importance to the work of the Committee. We are anxious to make sure that, when the new generation of representatives on the Committee is appointed later this year, it will be as strong a team as ever, demonstrating that we want to do all we can to help forward its work.

Even if my hon. Friend does not visit the Committee, will he suggest that it should initiate a discussion on the relationship of the negotiations on textile imports from Portugal to the prospects of Portuguese entry into the EEC? In view of the Government's determination that Portugal should be assisted in this entry, does my hon. Friend agree that every prospect of easing the sales of Portuguese textile goods to EEC countries should be facilitated?

The members of the Community are well aware of the problems facing the Portuguese Government in managing their economic recovery, but the precise arrangements that we can work out in the economic and trade spheres, and the rest, depend very much upon the major strategy that the Community has adopted on multi-fibres and generally on its trading arrangements with the outside world.

Since the Economic and Social Committee often discusses financial statistics, will the Minister remind it that, allowing for all adjustments, the total net contribution by the United Kingdom to the Community budget last year was one-sixth of the total amount of debt interest paid by the United Kingdom Government on the IMF loans and rescue package, which has saved this country over the last few years?

What should be well understood in this country, and, indeed, in the rest of the Community, is that we are very significant net contributors to the EEC.

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

My right hon. Friend expects that he will meet both the Danish President of the Community Council of Ministers and the President of the Commission at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 2nd May.

Now that a precedent has been set, will the Minister tell the President of the EEC that no one from Scotland or England can be elected to the European Parliament unless he or she has at least 40 per cent. of the votes of his or her total electorate?

I am sure that all concerned are well aware of the hon. Gentleman's point.

When my hon. Friend meets President Andersen and President Jenkins, will he ask them about the arrangements that are being set on foot to monitor Europe's agreement on firms in South Africa, so that we can make this code of conduct really work and have a policy on South Africa that links up with our policy on Rhodesia and Namibia?

The code of conduct adopted by the Nine is a very practical and significant step forward. We are anxious to see it applied effectively and, indeed, would like to see its principles extended to other countries in the OECD, beyond the Community itself.

Since no national policy is likely to succeed on the very vexed question of shipbuilding, will the Minister, when he next meets the President of the EEC, ask what is the latest thinking of the Economic and Social Committee on this question, in particular on the disastrous competitive national shipbuilding subsidy race?

It will be interesting to have the comments of the Economic and Social Committee on the human consequences of policy on this front, but this is a central issue for the Ministers themselves.

When the meeting takes place with the President, will my hon. Friend please draw to his attention the effect that the German trading position with this country is having on our economic prospects? We are running a deficit with Germany which is greater than that with any other country. Will my hon. Friend ask what measures the Germans are taking to remedy this state of affairs?

As the meetings earlier this week demonstrated, the Governments of Germany and of this country are determined to work together in trying to find a way forward. We share a great deal of common concern in our analysis of the situation. We are both determined to see the issues of unemployment and inflation tackled. Above all, we want to generate growth. If we are to do this successfully, it will be important to work with the Community as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the opinion of the European Commission on the Portuguese application for membership.

We expect the Commission's opinion on the Portuguese application to be submitted to the Council in May.

rose—

Order. I promised three minutes' injury time on this subject.

Does the Minister agree with Mr. Natali, the Commissioner for Enlargement, that Portugal will need a transitional period of at least 10 years? Does he also agree with the Commission's view that enlargement will inevitably mean a greater use of majority voting procedures in the Council of Ministers?

There are obviously considerable economic considerations, both for Portugal and for the Community as a whole, with regard to Portuguese accession to the Community. A transitional phase will be necessary. The precise time has vet to be worked out, but it may well have to be a considerable period in order to enable Portugal to become fully and effectively a participant within the Community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the EEC is already preparing measures that discriminate against Portu gal, before its entry? It is taking action in respect of fortified wines, tomatoes and fish, which are the only viable industries that Portugal has. This is indirectly affecting the British consumer because of the tariffs that the EEC intends to put on those goods. Will my hon. Friend look at this very carefully before he supports any suggestions that Portugal should be maimed in this fashion?

Certainly the British Government have no desire to maim the Portuguese economy. We well understand the problems with which that country is confronted. Of course, until Portugal accedes to the Community it is a fact that she has to be treated as part of the general arrangements between the Community and the outside world. I hope that we can move forward steadily and effectively with accession—which Portugal is keen to achieve—so that we can treat her as a member of the Community and not as a country outside.

I realise how serious and difficult are the economic problems that arise in connection with the admission of Portugal—indeed, also Spain and Greece—into the Community, but will the Minister bear in mind how immensely important it is to Portugal, from a political point of view, that early admission should take place? The sustenance of the rather early bud of renewed democracy in that country needs constant help. Will he bear this closely in mind?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. From the Government's point of view, the whole purpose of enlargement is to underpin the process of democracy and the democratisation of Western Europe as a whole. We understand the importance that the Portuguese Government and people attach to accession. We shall be playing our part, as the British Government, in speeding that forward as rapidly as we practically can.

In view of that answer, which I welcome, will not my hon. Friend go a little further and show more flexibility on the issue of current economic negotiations with Portugal? Does not he realise that it would be disastrous if we rigidly adhered to the fact that Portugal is now a nation outside the Community in order to enforce certain things upon her textiles and other exports to the Community which might lead to an economic war from which Portugal would suffer, so that entry would probably not take place?

I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall try to be as imaginative as we can during this period of adjusting Portugal to membership of the Community. It is essentially a process of adjustment. I agree that during this period it would be very silly to take steps that were punitive in their approach to the Portuguese economy.