asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Zambia.

I have at present no plans to do SO.

Does the Foreign Secretary consider that the Zambian copper fields are as vulnerable to attack by Angolan rebels as are those in nearby Zaire? Does not that possibility underline the essential vulnerability of raw material supplies from Southern Africa to Western Europe? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear that in mind in the Anglo-American talks, since the United States is far less dependent on external sources of raw materials than we are?

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that Southern Africa is a very important source of many crucial raw materials. He is also right to point out the vulnerability of the copperbelt in Zambia, particularly as a result of what has happened in Zaire. It is common knowledge that forces crossed through Zambian territory into Zaire. The Zambian Government had no knowl- edge of this and they have deplored it, but in that remote part of the country they were unable to stop it. There is a danger of law and order breaking down in Zaire, Zambia and that part of Angola, and that is why it is important that the politcal heads of those countries should come together.

What action has the Foreign Secretary taken over the massacre on 4th May by South African troops of 600 Namibians, many of whom were teenagers who were subsequently buried in mass graves in Cassinga?

There is no doubt that that raid has made it very much harder to seek agreement for a transition to independence for Namibia, but we have pursued our objective in the five-Power initiative. There is another Question about Namibia on the Order Paper.

Since the future prosperity of Zambia depends upon a peaceful solution in Rhodesia, may I widen the question a little? While it is essential that the Patriotic Front should renounce the use of force and participate peacefully in the affairs of Rhodesia, and it is essential that rapid progress should be made by the internal leaders towards the implementation of the principle of majority rule by, for example, dropping race discrimination laws, does not the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the passive approach that has been adopted by the Britsih Government towards the Rhodesia problem in the last few months has, however unintentionally, helped to jeopardise—

Order. If the hon. Gentleman will link his question to Zambia, I shall be very grateful.

I believe that the future prosperity of Zambia depends upon a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia. Will the Secretary of State give active encouragement to a peaceful solution in Rhodesia by, for example, giving practical assistance in the preparations for the elections in Rhodesia?

There are some critics of our policy among the Opposition, but I do not think that their main criticism is that we are passive. The question of Zambia is the central issue here. That is a crucial country in regard to achieving peace in Rhodesia, and it is important that we should listen to the views of people such as President Kaunda, who, over the years, has shown a great willingness to take personal risks to try to achieve a negotiated settlement and, I believe, still intends to do so. Zambia has a role to play and it is important that we should recognise that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in regard to the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus; and if he will make a statement.

The withdrawal of a further 800 Turkish troops from Cyprus was announced in mid-April. However, my right hon. Friend does not think it possible to divorce this question from the Cyprus problem as a whole, over which the Government support efforts by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to reconvene intercommunal talks.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Prime Minister of Turkey, Mr. Ecevit, has said that the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus is not possible in the absence of progress being made in the renewal of arms deliveries by the United States to Turkey and of some progress being made among the international finance institutions towards additional economic assistance for Turkey? Therefore, will he ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to take an initiative, in view of President Kyprianou's statement that he is now in favour of the demilitarisation of Cyprus? Co-ordination and timing are vital, and my right hon. Friend could assist.

For the record, it should be said that at one time the Turks had about 40,000 troops in Cyprus. Withdrawals totalling about 15,000 have been announced at various times. There were 800 withdrawals when the Turkish proposals for Cyprus were made in mid-April. I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government's view is that both sides to the dispute must show flexibility. That has been urged by my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on both Mr. Ecevit and President Kyprianou during their recent visits to London.

Are we not drifting again into quite serious danger? The Turks are indignant about the arms embargo and the Greek Cypriots are refusing to accept the Turkish proposals even as a basis for negotiation. Will the hon. Gentleman be more clear about what Her Majesty's Government are doing to get talks going either through the EEC or direct as a guarantor?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to say that it is not for us to tell the United States Congress how to behave over the arms embargo. That is an American matter. We are deeply concerned about not only Cyprus but strategic and defence issues in the Mediterranean. We are also concerned about other disputes and their implications for Turkey and Greece. For all these reasons we want to speed peaceful settlements in the area. We are urging flexibility and imagination on all parties to the dispute. We believe that the way forward is to support the Secretary-General in the initiative that he has taken and to bring home to the parties in Cyprus that there can be no lasting solution without their commitment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with Western Foreign Ministers about the position of Namibia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the resumed negotiations for ending South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

The meeting of the Five's Foreign Ministers reviewed recent developments, particularly the meeting of the front-line States and SWAPO in Luanda. We are determined to press ahead with discussions to secure early agreement on our proposal, and are in touch with the parties concerned.

The propositions and examinations in which my right hon. Friend has been indulging could lead to a settlement in Namibia, but is he aware that at the end of the year Namibia goes to the polls in preparation for independence and that that is now being threatened by South African attacks on SWAPO camps that could lead to assistance for SWAPO by Soviet forces? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that that could damage or even ruin the progressive measures in which he has been involved?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the raid on Cassinga has not helped progress towards a settlement. However, it still must be the view of the five Governments that they should try to bring about sufficient support to be able to go to the Security Council and, within the framework of the United Nations, bring Namibia to independence before the end of the year.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the terms of the Security Council resolution passed unanimously on 13th January 1976 and supported by the United Kingdom require that Walvis Bay should be an integral part of Namibia and that there can be no trading on that score to pacify the South Africans?

Our proposals have been published, and everybody knows what we have suggested. There are differing views on the issue of Walvis Bay. It is interesting that all the parties that would compete in an election in Namibia believe that Walvis Bay should be part of Namibia. That is something on which they are unanimous. It is the view of the five Governments that there should be urgent negotiations between the South African Government and the newly independent Government to achieve a solution that satisfies the people of Namibia as a whole.

The right hon. Gentleman may know that I am no supporter of South Africa in its attitude towards Namibia, but at the same time it must be recorded as a fact—I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with me—that the South Africans have conceded a great deal on Namibia since their original Turnhalle position. Does he agree that the pressure must now be put on SWAPO? How does he propose, together with his four allies, to exercise that pressure?

We have made progress. It is important to record in the House that the South African Government have accepted the proposals that have been put forward. We have had a setback since the Cassinga raid. The five frontline Presidents have exerted considerable powers of persuasion over SWAPO in Luanda. Many other African countries believe that the Five's initiative offers a basis for bringing Namibia to independence. It is not so much a matter of bringing pressure on one side or the other. There are a few relatively minor issues still needing clarification. We are trying to achieve clarification in a way that will have the agreement of all parties, so that we can get a resolution through the Security Council.

Will my right hon. Friend take note that all the ethnic and political groups inside Namibia would be gravely concerned if the date of independence were postponed by any action of the Western Powers? Will he now put a term upon the SWAPO reply to the Western proposals—some time around mid-July—and encourage people such as Andreas Shipanga, who was recently released from Tanzania after two years' imprisonment without trial and has now formed the SWAPO Democrats and wishes to proceed to a democratic peaceful transition in Namibia?

It is extremely important that that date should be maintained. That is why I believe that the Security Council resolution must come in July and no later. The decision of the Tanzanian Government to release some of the SWAPO detainees is important. It is important that they are all released in the various countries in which they are held—South Africa and other countries. It is not for me to choose between the political parties. The hope of the Five is that there should be a free and fair election and that the people of Namibia should decide.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement on the furtherance of the date of independence is to be greatly welcomed? Is he further aware that another factor that is worrying all parties in Namibia is whether the elections will be able to take place freely and honestly? Is he able to give any assurance that the five Powers will be able to ensure that that happens and that there will be no intervention from outside forces, from whichever side?

It is crucial that the United Nations' military presence should be sufficiently strong to ensure that there is no infiltration from anybody to cause a disruption of the election process, and that the arrangements for security inside the country during that time are satisfactory. As is so often the case, as in Rhodesia, one of the major issues is to try to get a satisfactory arrangement for internal security.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current position of the negotiations with Spain in relation to Gibraltar.

My right hon. Friend had a meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister in New York on 2nd June. He hopes that a start can soon be made with the proposed working groups which they agreed to set up at his meeting with Senor Oreja in Paris, at which Sir Joshua Hassan and Mr. Xiberras were present.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Will he confirm that the matter was raised with Senor Calvo Sotelo during the visit to the United Kingdom on a date later than his answer—namely 20th-21st June? Was it part of the conversations that took place on that occasion? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he would regard it as unthinkable that a country could be a member of the EEC and behave towards a neighbour as Spain is now behaving towards Gibraltar?

I can confirm that the matter was discussed during the meetings to which the hon. Gentleman referred. There was reference to it in only general terms as it was not the central purpose of the visit. I think that he will agree, if he does not recall this from his reading of Hansard, that he has quoted a word that I have used myself in the context of the future between Gibraltar and Spain after Spain's accession to the Community.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to the Spanish Government that we shall continue to support them in what may prove difficult negotiations regarding their application to join the Common Market? However, will he make it clear that our position would be considerably strengthened if they would regularise the position with Gibraltar and open the border?

I warmly agree with my hon. Friend. It would be good news if they would adjust their position to one that would be more acceptable in terms of their relationship with Gibraltar. As for our general commitment to Spanish accession to the Community, we take second place to nobody in our desire to see that speeded forward as rapidly as possible.

Does the Minister agree that the Government have always expressed the view that they will not link membership of the EEC and the opening of negotiations with the frontier question? Apart from that statement, the Government have never given the reasons why they will not link them. Will the Minister now do so?

With respect, I must disagree with the hon. Member. I recall that not long ago he put the same question to the Prime Minister, who made it clear that in his view the relationships between Spain and Gibraltar and the restrictions were totally unacceptable. He said that these difficulties should be removed as rapidly as possible and should certainly not wait on Spanish accession to the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent communications he has had with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics' Government about Soviet activities in Africa.

I discussed African problems, among other international issues, with Mr. Gromyko in New York on 1st June.

What penalty will the Soviet Union suffer if it continues its aggressive activities in Africa?

The penalty will be the growing disillusionment of many of the African countries about the Soviet Union's intentions there. This is already becoming evident as it becomes more obvious that its contribution is mainly one of supplying arms, that its contribution in terms of aid and development and technical assistance is negligible and derisory compared with the contribution of the Western world, and as more and more African countries see that their position of non-alignment will be challenged if the Soviet Union becomes too involved in their internal affairs.

Does not the scale of the massacre of black civilians in Cassinga by the South African forces contrast strongly with the absence of any protest from the Opposition Benches? Is not the hypocrisy of that side of the House indicated by suggestions that people who are looking for justice and have to turn to arms, and to ask the Russians for those arms, are committing some kind of offence, when South Africa and Rhodesia continue with their restrictive policies from white minority regimes?

When it has been necessary to condemn violence I have condemned it from whatever source it has come. I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that we shall try to follow a nonselective policy. The need for Africa is to avert the current increase in violence in many African countries and the threat of chaos which comes in the wake of violence and the breakdown of good administration and law and order.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister's statement in New York that we should not allow differences with the Soviet Union over Africa to interfere with the process of detente will be regarded as a green light by those in Moscow to go ahead with their adventurism in Africa and in South Arabia? Is he further aware that there is a widespread impression that instead of the Prime Minister stiffening President Carter's backbone he has been hanging on to his coat tails? Does he agree that while turning the other cheek might be the highest manifestation of individual virtue, when it is practised by Ministers who are the trustees of nations it is a sign of either irresponsibility or impotence?

The right hon. Gentleman would do well to read the Prime Minister's speech. If the right hon. Gentleman were able to show the same degree of understanding of the complexity of the African issue and the complexity of detente and East-West affairs as the Prime Minister shows, he would not be sitting on the Opposition Back Benches.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure Soviet interference in Africa—which appears to be Conservative Party policy—is to force the liberation movements into Soviet dependence for political support and hard supplies?

I agree that it is important that African countries which are intensely nationalistic should be encouraged to remain genuinely non-aligned. One of the ways of doing that is not always to leap immediately to cut off aid and diplomatic contacts, but to try to persuade them of the virtues of our democratic Western system. We are doing that successfully in Africa. It is complete nonsense to lose sight of the fact that Western influence in Africa is probably stronger than it has been over the last five years because of our readiness to support genuine liberation movements.

Does the Foreign Secretary consider this to be the right moment to test the intentions of the Soviet Union, to see whether it will back a ceasefire across all the frontiers of Rhodesia as a prelude to useful negotiations with all parties?

I think that the Soviet Union would say that it has no involvement, but we know that it does supply arms to liberation movements and that that has given the Soviet Union a great deal of influence. Since we cannot supply arms, it is important that we should try to offset that influence by humanitarian assistance and other measures. A ceasefire in Africa across all boundaries would be in total keeping with the charter of the Organisation of African Unity, which involves a respect for the existing map of Africa. That is one of the things that we have fought for in the Horn of Africa and in Zaire and that we are trying to maintain in Namibia and Rhodesia.

Does the Secretary of State feel that detente is indivisible and that Soviet policies in Africa should be seen within the wider context of Western relations with the Soviet Union? Has not the time come not only for the British Government but for the Western world to show a more robust approach—

Like what?

—by, for example, saying clearly to the Soviet Union that if it persists with its destructive policies in Africa we cannot go on providing it with privileged credit facilities or grain?

I agree that detente is indivisible. I have said so on many occasions. I do not believe that one can exclude from East-West relations the type of adventurism that we have seen in Africa. I have never denied that. The British Government have maintained—and have won great support throughout the world for their view—that we should be wary of thinking that African problems are exclusively an East-West issue. They are not. They are primarily African in context.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-wealth Affairs what action he will take to follow up the conclusion of the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, now that the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament has finished, and in view of the Prime Minister's speech to the Session, what steps the Government are taking to pursue the Prime Minister's proposals for practical action.

We shall pursue with vig- our the negotiations in which we are currently involved and try to advance progress in disarmament through the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made in his speech to the General Assembly on 2nd June.

Would it not be a practical sequel if we accepted the new Warsaw Pact proposals for a force reduction in central Europe, in which they offer for the first time greater reductions than NATO? Can the Minister indicate roughly the British reaction to that and, if possible, the American reaction, as stated by spokesmen so far?

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has said in the House, we regard these new proposals as a significant advance. For the first time they accept at least the principle of parity as the outcome of the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations. In part the proposals result from those that we made to the Soviet Union. We therefore welcome this response. The proposals will have to be studied carefully, and no doubt we shall be pursuing the negotiations further.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the initiative taken by the Canadian Government in renouncing the use of nuclear weapons is valuable? Would it not be a good idea for the British Government to follow that initiative and do the same thing, particularly in view of the statements by the United States and Russia that they will guarantee countries such as India and Brazil against attack by nuclear weapons if they do not develop them?

As my hon. Friend knows, we belong to an alliance. Matters such as this are for the alliance as a whole. Many of us would doubt whether the security of this country would be advanced if we made unmistakably clear in advance that we would never use nuclear weapons in response to a conventional attack, given that there is conventional weapon superiority on the Warsaw Pact side in Europe at present.

Does the Minister agree that it is a matter of the gravest concern that while we have been engaging with the Soviets in the strategic arms limitation talks and the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations in good faith, at least in the case of the conventional build-up, we have seen a situation arise in recent years which has led to the position that today, even if a whole Soviet tank army of three tank divisions were to be removed from the group of Soviet forces in Germany, there would still be several hundred more Soviet tanks in East Germany than there were at the start of the MBFR talks at the beginning of the decade?

I have just expressed concern about the imbalance of conventional forces in Europe. The size of Soviet tank armies in the central Europe area has been a crucial issue in the MBFR negotiations, and we have made proposals designed to reduce that tank strength.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant contribution could be made to disarmament by denying arms and armaments to Governments who are likely to use them against other nations or against their own people? Bearing that in mind, will he make a statement about the Government's attitude towards the provision, to the Chilean fascist junta, of the aero-engines now in Britain?

My hon. Friend knows that we consider every individual arms deal very carefully in the light of precisely the kind of consideration that he has raised—whether they are likely to be used against neighbouring States, and whether they might be used against the population of the country concerned. I cannot comment at present about the aero-engines for Chile.

Referring to the Minister's first answer to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), may I ask whether he agrees that it is all very well for the Russians to offer to reduce their forces to a greater extent than we reduce ours but that they can get their forces back quickly across the land, whereas our reinforcements and those of America have to come by sea and air?

That is one of the considerations that the NATO Alliance has in mind in undertaking these negotiations. As for the central European area, which is under discussion in the MBFR negotiations, we have from the beginning been aiming at a position of parity between the forces on both sides. The advance that has now been made, is that the Soviet Union has accepted that in principle. The difficulty is that there is still no agreement about the present balance of forces in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the USSR authorities about increasing the height limit for civil aircraft flying between West Germany and Berlin.

None, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that the present height limit was set in 1945 by the four Powers, when piston-engined aircraft were operating, and it was the optimum height for those aircraft? Is the Minister aware that it is a totally uneconomic height for jet aircraft? Is he further aware that British Airways are of the view that if they were allowed to operate at heights up to 20,000 ft. they could considerably improve passenger comfort? Will he press these points on the Soviet authorities?

Such an approach would obviously have to be co-ordinated with all our allies and would have to take into account many aspects of the air services agreements. The situation basically remains as described in the answer given to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), that:

"quadripartite agreements establishing the air corridors did not impose any height limits. The Soviet authorities have, however, sought to assert that there is a 10,000 ft. ceiling. The Three Powers have never accepted that this is so, but in the interests of air safety"—

"Allied aircraft have generally flown below this height."—[Official Report, 31st July 1972; Vol. 842; c. 21.]

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement in the House on his views of the action of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in prosecuting Dr. Yuri Orlov for his protest at Soviet violations of the human rights treaty signed at Helsinki.

No, Sir. The Government's views have been made entirely clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in answer to Questions on 18th May, by my right hon. Friend in the foreign affairs debate on 7th June, and by myself in a reply to the hon. Member on 8th June.

Does the Under-Secretary agree that the prosecution of Dr. Yuri Orlov and other dissidents for their attempts to monitor the Helsinki agreement in the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union's total lack of implementation of this agreement are prime examples of the charade of detente being indulged in by the Soviet Union? Does he further agree that the attitude of the Government and the Foreign Secretary towards this question gives credibility and respectability to the Soviet Union's continued persecution of its own citizens?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the arrest and trial took place of somebody whose only fault was that he was trying to ensure that the Helsinki agreement, to which the Soviet Union is a party, was effectively observed is a major cause of concern and one of the reasons why the trial has caused such an outcry all over the world. As I said in my original answer, we have already made clear our deep concern, and the House as a whole has made clear its concern.

Will the Foreign Secretary press the Soviet Government to open Soviet trials to foreign observers, particularly the forthcoming trials of Shcharansky and Ginsburg?

As my hon. and learned Friend probably knows, we had hoped that observers would be allowed into the trial of Dr. Orlov, but that was prevented. It seemed strange, if the trial were as fair as the Soviet authorities had suggested, that they should want to conceal the proceedings from the public. We may well make a similar approach for observers to be allowed at the trials of Shcharansky and Ginsburg.

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

The Government continue to support efforts to restore direct peace talks between Egypt and Israel. This is on the understanding that these would be aimed at wider negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement based on the principles of Security Council resolution 242 as amplified in the European Council declaration of 29th June 1977.

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the fact that the Israeli Government have rejected out of hand the most recent proposal put forward by the Egyptian Government, with American encouragement? Does he not feel that the time has come for the European Community to break its rather long silence on the subject? Will he put forward a proposal of international control of the West Bank and Gaza after Israeli withdrawal?

It was agreed in the Council of Foreign Ministers yesterday that this issue would be discussed as a political co-operation item at the Bremen Summit. There was no disposition to make another statement, but certainly we wanted to try to see where we were going, and in particular to judge the climate and see whether the United States' present attempts to bring Israel and Egypt into direct talks would be successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a fine balance between the Arab expectations in regard to territory and the needs of Israel for security? May we be assured that there will be, from Her Majesty's Government, a continuing even-handed policy?

Yes. I believe that we have to balance those two factors. Sometimes, when resolutions have been put down which have ignored the legitimate security interest of Israel, the United Kingdom has thought it right to insist that that should be included. I think that the balance also has to reflect a degree of commitment to achieving a negotiated settlement. Further and more positive statements will have to be made. In relation to this—referring to a question of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) that I did not answer—I think that the Israeli Cabinet will have to be more positive in any direct talks that may come about. It may argue that it cannot move in isolation, from being in negotiation, but the world expects movement in any discussions.

Since there is a serious impasse at the present time, will the Secretary of State make clear, in answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), whether he feels that there is a role for the Community to play in helping to facilitate further discussions between the Arabs and the Israelis, clearly based on the principle of Security Council resolution 242?

Yes, I think that there is a continuing role for the European Community. It is involved with all the States through the Maghreb agreements. We have traditional links—some of them very close and long-established—with various countries, and I believe that the European Community is right to keep this issue constantly in front of it. There are times when we can be supportive of the United States, and there are times when we can take an independent stance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Malaysia.

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

What is the latest position in the negotiations with Malaysia with regard to overflying rights for Concorde en route to Singapore? Can the Minister confirm that these are not being held up by an attempt on the part of Malaysia to trade off these overflying rights against matters that have nothing to do with aviation?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The position of Her Majesty's Government is that there is no connection between the discussions that have been taking place about Concorde and the other talks about air services arrangements, which are taking place in a different context. I entirely agree that there is no reason why these two things should be related.

Will the Foreign Secretary take up with the Malaysian Government the position of the 110.000 citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who live in Malaysia and the possibility of giving them Malaysian citizenship? That would certainly be of considerable importance in adjusting our own citizenship.

I agree with my hon. Friend that that action would certainly help us in relation to our own nationality and citizenship laws. We have no immediate plans to discuss the matter with the Malaysian Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the development of political co-operation in the Council of Ministers and amongst the permanent representatives; and what initiatives he is planning.

I am very satisfied with the development of political co-operation. We are finding increasing areas of agreement amongst the countries of the Nine on issues as diverse as Africa, Chile and the Belgrade conference.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an urgent need for a more cohesive and united EEC stance, in particular on Africa in the light of recent events in Zaire and Rhodesia? Is he planning any political initiatives to speed up this process?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gives credit where it is due. Three or four years ago there were major differences of opinion in the Community on African questions, particularly in relation to South Africa. Also, there was a fairly major divide, and very little cross-fertilisation of ideas and exchange of information with regard to Francophone Africa and Anglophone Africa. I believe that the Community's involvement in Africa through Lomé has been a significant new development, and there is now far greater understanding than hitherto.

While recognising the point which the Foreign Secretary has made about Francophone and Anglophone Africa, may I ask whether the Government are aware that in the answers given to questions each month in the European Parliament by the President in Office of the Council of Ministers there is very little sign of increasing political co-operation? Surely, the success which we have achieved in this particular respect can be extended to other areas.

My right hon. Friend points to a genuine problem which the President faces on this issue. I remember it well when I held the Presidency myself. It is extra-Treaty political co-operation, and there is great sensitivity about speaking in front of the Assembly on the Community's position in relation to some of these questions. We find it easier to reach agreement informally as a Council but not so easy to translate that into specific and detailed answers on the floor of the Assembly. This was discussed at the last political co-operation meeting, and when the Presidency comes to Germany the new President—Herr Genscher—has said that he hopes to be more forthcoming in parliamentary answers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether prior to the Franco-Belgian intervention in Zaire either France or Belgium used the mechanism of political co-operation either to ask the Community countries about the appropriateness of the action or to give their Community partners some warning of the action?

No, it was not done in the framework of political co-operation. Because time was so short, there was an ad hoc arrangement involving France, the United States, the United Kingdom and Belgium. There was then an interchange of ideas which went wider as events developed, but initially it was those four who co-operated in the initial response. Zaire had been discussed in the framework of political co-operation in the spring of 1977, when the first incident in Shaba occurred.

Does my right hon. Friend stand by the pledge, so often given, that on matters of basic national interest each member State has a right of veto in the Council of Ministers?

Yes, and that is implicit in political co-operation. One has to reach unanimous agreement among the Nine.

Will the Foreign Secretary put some extra effort into this matter? Even if he is satisfied, I am sure that no one else is. Does he not agree that the pooling of information and the occasional issuing of declarations of principle are not enough? Is it not time that we had the will and the machinery to use coherently and consistently the economic and political power of Europe in the defence of Western interests?

Most of the criticism is that the United Kingdom spends too much time on political co-operation and not enough on true Community affairs. I do not think that there is any doubt that we give a very high priority to it. For instance, there is the involvement over the Belgrade conference and the co-ordination of positions there. It also applies to many other areas. For example, at the United Nations Special Session, for the first time ever the Community produced a common position—I admit, not a very exciting one—on disarmament. Hitherto, this has always been thought too sensitive a subject for the European Community to take a position on. I think that this is an interesting and new development.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited the European Economic Commission.

Yesterday, at the Council meeting in Luxembourg, I met many of the Commissioners. The Council discussed preparations for the European Council at Bremen, approved a negotiating mandate for the opening of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention and also adopted a set of conclusions to serve as guidelines to the Community negotiators in the next stage of the multilateral trade negotiations. I am circulating a fuller account in the Official Report.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Should he not pay a visit to the Commission proper so that among the assembled members of the Commission and their senior officials he can say how distressed he was that the Errol Flynn of British politics—namely, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—unwittingly and quite accidentally misled public opinion in this country by misreading the original Commission proposals on the Milk Marketing Board and assuming that the Commission actually wanted to abolish it? Should not the Foreign Secretary now take this opportunity to say how sorry he was that the Minister misunderstood what the Commission was getting at?

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the other day I was in Wales and the concern felt by Welsh farmers about the Milk Marketing Board was total and genuine. The issue was that the Commission was only prepared to postpone the review for a period of years and was prepared to give an extended life, but not a permanent life, to the Milk Marketing Board. The achievement of my right hon. Friend was to achieve a permanence for the Milk Marketing Board. That is a very formidable achievement, and people in milk production, whose monthly cheque from the Milk Marketing Board is utterly crucial to them, strongly welcome my right hon. Friend's achievement.

When my right hon. Friend next meets the Commission, particularly the President, will he draw its attention to the editorial in the Daily Express the other day which was very much in line with the views of the Labour Party conference that either fundamental changes should be made in the CAP and the interests of Britain should actually be taken into consideration or we get out of the Common Market?

As hon. Members will know, I have some difficulty in endorsing editorial comment in the Daily Express. But I note the fact that there is still a considerable body of opinion in this country which does not feel that we have benefited from our membership of the Community. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"] That is a fact which any Government must take into account, and take seriously. I believe that is why it is crucially important that a country which is the second largest contributor to the EEC budget, although only sixth in the level of GNP, should have a rearrangement of the financial contribution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvements he intends to press for in the decision-taking processes of the European Community, particularly for coping with the problems of reaching agreement in an enlarged Community.

I shall continue to press in particular for improvements in the control and organisation of Council business, so that issues can be resolved after discussion and consultation and with full democratic control.

Does my right hon. Friend favour the increased use of majority voting in the Council of Ministers?

I doubt whether it is necessary. What we are seeing is a form of informal majority voting, which has been building up steadily and persistently over the years, when a country which finds itself in a minority on an issue not of fundamental importance is prepared to concede or compromise. Were we to formalise the voting system, I believe that we would find it much harder to achieve the compromise which is necessary for the Community to work effi- ciently and effectively. It is the British position that there is already in existence an effective majority voting system, that it is not necessary to formalise it and that it is necessary to maintain the spirit of the Luxembourg compromise.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that there should be the closest cooperation between the EEC and NATO?

The two organisations have different functions, and one countryIreland—is not a member of NATO. It is very important to recognise that Spain, for example, which is applying to join the EEC, has not yet resolved the controversial issue of membership of NATO. Also, Greece has a different relationship with NATO—it is not a full member. A distinction is also made in France. Therefore, I believe that we would be unwise to adopt a position where membership of the EEC was in any way formally linked with membership of NATO. We should see them as two distinct organisations which have, on many occasions, common interests.

Can there be any improved co-ordination between the various specialised Councils of Ministers and the Council of Foreign Ministers?

Yes, I think that there can be. There has been a movement away from believing that the Foreign Affairs Council is the only Council to make decisions inside the European Community. I believe that that is inevitable and right as the complexity of business increases. It is necessary to have specialised bodies because there are some areas where policy cannot be parcelled conveniently. An example of this is competition policy, which has very grave consequences for employment. In such cases there should he better co-ordination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made towards the enlargement of the Community; and if he will make a statement.

At a ministerial negotiating session with Greece on 26th June further useful progress was made. The Council considered the Commission's opinion on the Portuguese application on 6th June, when it decided to open negotiations as soon as practically possible after the summer break. The opinion on Spain will, I hope, be produced before the end of this year.

Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to achieve an enlargement that will not put at risk any of the Community's fundamental objectives it will be necessary to have specific sectoral agreements with the applicant States in each area of the economy? Have the Nine indicated whether any aid from Community funds which may be forthcoming to help the new entrants will be conditioned by their acceptance of a common discipline, at least in some sectors, even in advance of their full accession?

There is no question about it—the full obligations and rigours of Community membership are not yet fully understood by some of the applicant countries. This is an issue which will emerge in the detailed negotiations. There is no point in undertaking a transitional period and failing, within a couple of years, to live up to the obligations.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that enlargement of the Community is the first priority for this Government in its relations with the existing Community? Does he further agree that that is an essential precondition for maintaining this Government's policy for a wider and looser grouping of States in Europe, in order to avoid the federalist tendencies that may solidify and perpetrate themselves if we do not achieve that objective?

I am a strong believer in enlargement and in a wider involvement in the membership of the EEC. I do not accept that that means that it will be a looser grouping. It will be different. I believe that the Community is evolving constantly. It is very difficult to predict its future pattern. One thing that I will predict is that it will not be federalist.

What effect is progress towards enlargement of the Community likely to have on the need for further progress towards success in the multilateral trade negotiations, particularly on the non-tariff side? Is there likely to be a conflict between the two?

I do not think so. The multilateral trade negotiations must take account of the question of enlargement, but I do not think that it is crucial. The economic significance of the tariff reductions is not tremendous, particularly since they are being phased over a period of time. It is the other issues—the question of subsidies and the question of safeguards and protection—that are of profound significance to us and to other countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his EEC counterparts on the legal and political aspects of a dual mandate for directly-elected European Members of Parliament.

None.

What lessons have the Government learned from the attitude of other European Governments that are faced with this problem? Do the Government rule out the dual mandate in any way?

The policy of the Government is clearly laid down in the Green Paper, Cmnd. 6399, and in the White Paper, Cmnd. 6768. Our view is that the dual mandate should be optional, and the European Assembly Elections Act made provision for this. The views of other Governments have been made quite clear, and they are taking a similar view.

In view of the ever-increasing load on Members of this House, both in Parliament and in their constituencies, and the increasing load on Members of the European Assembly, does my hon. Friend think that it is practicable for one person to be a member of both Assemblies? Does he think that it is possible for any one person to carry out his or her duties effectively in both Assemblies?

You can do anything on £40,000 a year.

That question must be directed primarily to the political parties in the process that they go through in determining their candidates. That is the point at which this matter will be considered.

As the question of membership of the European Assembly raises the question of pay for Members of that Assembly, if any, will the Minister propose at the next Council of Ministers that the Members of the Assembly, if any, should be paid the lowest pay of any country and that each national Parliament should top it up, according to its will?

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will think that that is a most interesting suggestion and will give it the consideration that it merits. My right hon. Friend also will probably want to consider the response that he had to the discussions that took place in the Council of Ministers. The Council invited views from the European Assembly.

Can my hon. Friend tell us when final decisions on salaries will be reached? Will he confirm that the British Government remain opposed to super salaries and allowances and that any British Euro-Members will be subject to the British rates of tax?

No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the statement made by the Foreign Secretary after the Council of Ministers' meeting expressing the view that this matter should be resolved by the end of this year. I hope, as I am sure all hon. Members hope, that that will be the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what he proposes to put on the agenda at the next EEC Council of Foreign Ministers.

The written statement of forthcoming Council business will be deposited tomorrow and I expect to make my oral statement on 3rd July.

Does the Minister remember a proposal some time ago that we should have a Euro-passport? Will he raise this matter at the Council of Ministers and then give the House an assurance that he will not agree to do such a thing—using the Royal Prerogative—until he has the permission of this House?

As the hon. Member knows very well, this raises the subject of the Royal Prerogative. As he also knows, I have on many occasions, in response to his very genuine and passionate concern about this issue, given an undertaking that we will come to no definitive decision until the House has had a full opportunity to debate and discuss the matter.

Will my hon. Friend put on the agenda of the Council of Foreign Ministers' next meeting an item stating that the Common Market has been an unmitigated disaster for the British people? This should be discussed, because if a referendum were taken again those people who voted "Yes" would vote "No", and we would come out of the EEC.

No one would want to gloss over the disappointments of the British people about some aspects of membership of the EEC. I assure my hon. Friend that the priority of this Government is to bring all their persuasive powers to bear in trying to improve life for the ordinary men, women and children who make up the Community. Because of my respect for my hon. Friend's convictions and his passionate views, I sincerely put it to him that it would be more constructive for him to bring his own political force to play in improving what is wrong with the EEC rather than to concentrate on fighting old battles.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes to suggest a joint meeting between the Council of Ministers and the Agriculture Council in the near future.

No, Sir.

Does the Minister think that such a joint meeting would be the best way of considering whether a rural fund should be created within the EEC—a fund that would comprise the relevant parts of the Agricultural Fund, the Regional Fund and the Social Fund?

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is highly arguable whether the common agricultural policy is the right way in which to follow socal priorities which may have significance and importance but which would not add to the prices paid by consumers. Our priorities include the objective of ensuring that within that policy consumers get a fairer deal compared with the interests of producers—interests which we believe are all too well represented.

Is it not ludicrous that there are growing supplies of cheap food outside the bureaucratic barriers of the EEC? May I remind the Minister that there is no sense in which one can renegotiate EEC entry, because the present policy is a cornerstone of the Rome Treaty and all we can do is to scrap it or get out?

I do not altogether agree with my hon. Friend. On reflection, I am sure that he will accept that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made significant progress in getting the Community to adjust to reality in its agricultural policies. We have three priorities in our approach to CAP. One is that we do not wish to see funds being used to build up wasteful surpluses. The second priority is to see the interests of consumers better represented as against the interests of producers. The third is to seek fairer access for the produce of third countries.

In any negotiations will the Minister make a serious attempt to staunch the flow of directives and documents which emanate from Brussels? Will he examine the serious situation that faces those who are thinking of going to the Continent in mini-coaches and who might well be stopped from entering Continental countries because of the lack of documents related to the tachograph—a system which we have not yet adopted in this country?

I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's last point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. Such operators can overcome the problem by keeping a log. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments in the second part of his supplementary question. Far too much time, effort and money go into producing paper in Europe.

Are not the successes of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture due to the fact that he has dropped the silly and outmoded idea of trying to get this country out of the Community and is doing his best to safeguard British interests inside it?

I believe that all Members of this House, whatever their genuine views in the past—and there have been grave differences in this House on the subject of the Community—would do the greatest service to the British people if they now accepted that we are members of the Community and that our task is to improve the lot of the British people within the Community.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have observed that, despite your proper request for brevity, only 12 general Foreign and Commonwealth Questions were answered at Question Time. Is it not a serious matter that on subjects touching overseas interests, and, indeed, the integrity and honour of our country, Ministers should be protected in this way?

The House will be aware that I called far fewer supplementary questions today, yet we reached only Question No. 11 on the first item.

Shame.

The only person who shouts "Shame" is the one who was waiting to be called. I can understand his feelings. The truth is that the House has the remedy in its own hands. If answers or supplementary questions are too long, the House should indicate what it feels about the matter, as it used to. I would inform the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) that I have received no request from the Foreign Office, and I am afraid that I cannot help him.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What you say makes sense in regard to general questions. However, my specific request relates to a Question which touches on a statement made in this House by a Minister. I said that that happened unwittingly, because the person concerned is a man of great integrity, but it was a statement that was totally misleading. I shall not go beyond that now. In those circumstances, is it not proper, right and necessary to ask through you, Sir, for a statement to be made? This matter touches on the credibility of a Minister.

The time for the hon. Gentleman to make that request is when we deal with business questions tomorrow. That will be a very good opportunity, if he catches my eye.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible that there is a form of Parkinson's law in accordance with which supplementary questions expand to fill the time available?

I always listen with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman. Something has happened in the respect that he suggests, and I have been blaming it on the fact that our proceedings are being broadcast. However, I do not think I can lay blame any more at that door. I believe that hon. Members have forgotten how to ask supplementary questions.

rose—

I shall be pleased to hear the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who is a regular contributor.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With due respect, would it not expedite Questions if you were to make a preferential choice of those who make brief and pithy supplementary questions, as I always do?

I shall try to bear the hon. Gentleman in mind.