asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the present situation in the Middle East and the prospects for peace.

The statement issued by the Nine on 29th June demonstrates the importance which the European Community, including the United Kingdom, attaches to an urgent resumption of peace negotiations.

I welcome the EEC statement on the Middle East as a positive contribution towards achieving peace in the Middle East, but will the Secretary of State say what effective representations are now being made to the Israeli Government about the continuing building of settlements in the occupied territories in defiance of international law, which can only make progress towards peace more difficult?

We are in close and continuing contact with the Israeli Government, but I know of no new decisions taken by the new Israeli Government about settlements. I shall certainly look into any details that the hon. Gentleman cares to give me.

Has the Foreign Secretary seen that yesterday in another place my noble Friend Lord Byers introduced a Bill to protect companies, individuals and businesses from the effects of foreign boycotts? There is no substitute for a lasting settlement in the Middle East, but can we at least expect that in the interim the Government will give the same protection to British individuals and companies as is accorded by the United States Government to United States citizens and companies in that country?

I believe that there is another Question later on the Order Paper relating specifically to the boycott. The Government's view is well known. There was an Adjournment debate on this subject only a few days ago.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Adjournment debate on this matter a short time ago the Government spokesman specifically refused to stop the disgraceful practice of authenticating boycott documents? Will my right hon. Friend agree to give renewed consideration to stopping this practice, in view of what is, I think, the universal feeling of hon. Members that it is quite wrong for this practice to continue?

There is a specific Question on the Order Paper about that. I read the report of my hon. Friend's speech in that Adjournment debate and the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister who replied. I thought that it was a very useful exchange of views.

The Secretary of State must be aware that there is a view that the statement by the Foreign Ministers has unnecessarily heightened tension in the area. By its open commitment to a Palestinian State it is a sort of Balfour Declaration in reverse, without the strength, or occupation, and should be reconsidered.

I respect the right hon. Gentleman's views and I know his feelings on this matter, but what he has said is not correct. The statement was not referring to a Palestinian State. It was referring to the need for a Palestinian homeland. The statement needs to be read as a whole. It speaks of the need for a commitment to peace, with exchanges between all the parties concerned, with a view to establishing truly peaceful relations. I believe that it is a balanced statement and I do not believe that it has heightened tension in the area.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the word "territories" in Uniled Nations Resolution No. 242 has suffered a metamorphosis to "all territories"? Will my right hon. Friend repudiate that change to the best of his ability?

What has concerned us since 1967 is the continuing occupation of the territories that were overrun in 1967. That is what Resolution No. 242 refers to. If people are extending it to other territories, that is going far wider than Resolution No. 242.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next proposes to meet the Chinese Foreign Minister.

The Chinese Foreign Minister has been invited to visit the United Kingdom. No date has yet been fixed.

When my hon. Friend sees the Chinese Foreign Minister, will he express his satisfaction that this country has been able to help the Chinese People's Republic during the last five years by training about 400 students in various subjects? Will he also express his keen disappointment at the fact that it is not yet possible for senior British sinologists to spend prolonged periods in China and that they are not allowed access to Chinese libraries while they are there?

Particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar).

I think that my hon. Friend has a vested interest in this subject. I hope that I shall have a chance to speak to the Chinese Foreign Minister on this and other subjects. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that in the last five years 391 Chinese student-years have been spent in this country and 58 British student-years have been spent in China. I agree that there is equal value in exchanges in both directions. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should like to see more British people studying in China. We believe that China has a great deal to offer that is of value to foreign scholars and we shall continue to pursue the subject.

When the Chinese Foreign Minister comes here, as well as discussing cultural links between this country and the Chinese People's Republic, will the Minister and his colleagues also be discussing ways of increasing our trade with China, particularly our technical co-operation in the sphere of offshore oil and gas development?

We are certainly concerned about improving our trade with China. For the first time in many years we had a deficit in our trade with China over the past year, and we want to remedy that. I agree that the area that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would be useful for increasing our exports to China.

If my hon. Friend meets the Chinese Foreign Minister, will he discuss with him the anachronistic situation of Hong Kong and the possibility of resolving that absurd situation in a civilised way over the next two or three years?

The Chinese Government are very well aware of our views about the position of Hong Kong. They have indicated no anxiety radically to change the existing situation in the immediate future, but we shall continue to keep these questions in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that the technical studies being made of possible procedures for verifying observance of a chemical warfare disarmament treaty are commensurate not only with the verification provisions envisaged in the draft treaty put forward by Her Majesty's Government in 1976 but also with any other such provisions which Her Majesty's Government might have to consider.

Yes, Sir. The United Kingdom takes an active part in meetings of experts of the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament on this subject.

Are the technical studies actually being done? Secondly, are we being kept informed of the American-Russian bilateral talks?

Yes, Sir. I said that we are co-operatng, and indeed we are being kept informed on the American-Russian talks. We expect a decisive statement in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, at the forthcoming talks with the Argentine about the future of the Falkland Islands, he will make it clear that under the Charter of the United Nations the islanders have the right of self-determination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters will be discussed during the forthcoming talks with the Government of the Argentine about the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is intended to hold the proposed talks with the Argentine on the future of the Falkland Islands before or after the autumn elections in the islands.

As was announced yesterday, the first round in Anglo-Argentine negotiations on the Falkland Islands dispute is taking place in Rome from 13th to 15th July. The topics for discussion are set out in the terms of reference for these negotiations which were announced on 26th April. The Government's commitment to the principle of self-determination will once again be made clear to the Argentine during the current negotiations.

I am grateful to the Minister for that reassurance. but will he also see that it is made clear to the people of the Falkland Islands themselves? Will he accept that if what he says is correct any diminution of their sovereignty can take place only with their consent, and that if it is not forthcoming this country will be morally obliged to reject any such claim from the Argentine?

We shall of course inform the Falkland Islanders about our actions and our approach to the talks. I have myself sent a message to the Island Council informing it in advance of the first round of talks. I made it very clear to the House when we debated the matter on 1st March that the Government would not even bring proposals to the House unless they had received the acceptance of the islanders themselves.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his forthright declaration, clear and categorical, that there can be no change in sovereignty without the full consent and approval of the islanders. But whilst it may be advisable and indeed even necessary to offer the Argentine participation in the development of fishing, exploration for oil and that type of thing, will he at least consider lengthening the airfield so as to make the islanders less dependent on the Argentine for their communications?

We have already carried out one extension of the airfield, which has only just been completed. The idea of extending it considerably to take very large international airliners has been the subject of considerable debate. It would be extremely expensive —a multimillion pound project—and on the basis of existing evidence we could not commit ourselves to it. However, we are willing to commission, when it seems appropriate, any preliminary studies necessary to investigate the matter further. I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman, who is, as I am, a keen supporter of the Falkland Islanders' welfare, that if we built the extension and it turned out to be something of a white elephant the burden of cost to the islanders themselves could be considerable.

Why, just before the British community in the Falkland Islands holds its own free elections, are the Government holding any talks at all with the Fascist Government of the Argentine, whose disregard of fundamental human rights has already caused the United States to cut off aid'?

The hon. Gentleman will know that I went to the islands myself to talk to the Island Council and met many islanders to explain the background to the round of talks. I said that we should probably have the first round at about this time, and this was accepted by the Island Council without demur. We should be taking part in subsequent talks, and after the elections we should continually consult and maintain our consultations with the islanders and the new Island Council. There is no way in which we have gone behind the backs of the islanders in this respect.

On the wider issue of the remaining dependent territories of the Commonwealth, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government do not quite know what to do with those territories? As any one of them, including the Falkland Islands, could become a flashpoint at any time, is it not about time we had a proper and comprehensive review of what our policy to the remaining territories should be?

I think that probably as Minister I have spent as much time as most Ministers historically, if not more, in dealing with our remaining dependent territories and considering their future. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need a coherent policy. We have been evolving such a policy for the majority of the territories concerned—for example, the Associated States in the Caribbean, the Solomon Islands, the Gilbert Islands and the Ellice Islands, and the Seychelles last year. We are evolving and have evolved a coherent view in respect of most dependent territories, but no general policy could apply to particular situations, and there are particular situations in places such as Belize and the Falkland Islands.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen a recent copy of the Falkland Times, which expresses its considerable concern about the lack of proper and authentic information about what the British Government have in mind? Will the hon. Gentleman give an absolute assurance to the House that the people of the Falkland Islands individually—perhaps through that publication—will he told about the substance and details of the talks now going, on in Rome?

I resent the implication that we have been keeping information from the islanders. I was the first Minister in nine years to go to the islands to discuss the problems with the islanders themselves. I have kept up, by regular correspondence, consultation with the islanders and the Island Council, and whenever Falkland Islanders have come here I have tried to meet them. We are maintaining and developing first-class co-operation between ourselves and the Falkland Islands. I do not think that the Falkland Times is the only vehicle for conveying the views of the British Government to the Falkland Islanders.

Does my hon. Friend accept that no hon. Member has any right to complain about the lack of personal interest that my hon. Friend has shown in the affairs, welfare and well-being of the people of the Falkland Islands? Does he also accept that there is no reason why detailed progress on local issues, including economic issues, should be held up simply because talks are taking place with another Government?

Of course. I think that many of the hopes and aspirations of the islanders on local issues can be met, and we shall make every effort to do so.

Is it a fact that a Scottish company is interested in helping the development of the Falkland Islands fisheries? Will this sort of project be encouraged by Her Majesty's Government?

We have given every encouragement particularly in recent months, following publication of the Shackleton Report—to encourage anybody who wishes to invest and to develop, particularly on the fisheries side in the islands and island waters. That is one of the few areas for development that the report identifies. I cannot give specific information about the particular company mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I assure him that we are giving the maximum encouragement to such investments or projects.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to generate income from the airfield on the Falkland Islands.

The Falkland Islands Legislative Council announced on 15th June an imposition of a£2 a head embarkation fee at the new airport. The prospects for the Falkland Islands Government being able to generate further income will be dependent on future economic activity in the region.

Will the Minister seriously research the proposition that if the runway on the Falkland Islands were greatly extended it could be part of a major alternate great circle route to Australia and New Zealand? Will he bear in mind that airports are highly labour-intensive?

I have already dealt with the question of the extension of the airfield in answering previous supplementary questions. At the moment we have no evidence to suggest that many of the commercial airlines wish to travel to and refuel from the Falkland Islands. It is one of the many aspects of the airport extension project that require further study.

Will my hon. Friend accept that economic support for the people of the Falkland Islands is the best assurance they could have that we shall not push them closer to the repressive regime in the Argentine? When we consider the statement by Senor Allara today, at the outset of the talks in Rome, that the Argentine has full control over the Falkland Islands, will my hon. Friend accept that there is cause for the worries and reservations of the islanders?

On the second part of my hon. Friend's question, it is just not so. We are in control of the Falkland Islands, together with the Falkland Islanders themselves.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no decision with regard to the future of the Falkland Islands will be made during the recess or without further reference?

I give that assurance. One does not envisage these talks being suddenly completed. This has been a long-standing problem and we have no miracle solution to it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to raise in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the brutalities being committed in Mozambique and other front-line States.

No, Sir.

Does the Foreign Office accept that, in the context of human rights, unspeakable brutalities are being committed daily in Mozambique and frontline States, and not only by Amin? If the Foreign Office is to preserve any reputation for impartiality, is it not really time that it became colour-blind on this issue?

The terms and language of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question really are monstrous, in the context—[interruption.] Obviously. there are Press reports, but they are not substantiated, and we do not think that we should take these cases to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights unless there is evidence that substantiates them.

Does. my hon. Friend agree that it would be unrealistic at present to take the matter before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights? Does he also agree that, unhappily, brutalities are inevitable in any kind of guerrilla warfare of this nature and that the best course of action that his right hon. Friend could take would be to pursue a peaceful solution, in spite of the obduracy of the Smith Government?

I certainly think that the real peace and security of the area, and the human rights of all people in the area, will be best promoted by a negotiated settlement, as soon as possible, on the Rhodesia question.

If the hon. Gentleman will not take this matter to the United Nations, will he at least accept the right of the people of Rhodesia to self-determination and not have his policy dictated to him by the front-line States which are guilty of this sort of thing?

We have no intention of having our policy dictated by anyone. Our policy on Rhodesia is aimed at achieving the very thing that the hon. Gentleman talks about—the introduction of free and fair elections to identify who really are the representatives of the Zimbabwean people.

Is there any way that my hon. Friend can devise to enlighten the obdurate ignorance of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. King) about the realities of what is happening in Mozambique? Is the hon. Member really so unknowing of the realities of the situation as not to realise that 600 Rhodesians were massacred by Rhodesian forces and that the Selous Scouts are acting in disguise, pretending to be guerrillas and carrying out mass murders in Southern Rhodesia?

I do not think it is for me to recommend how we should educate certain Opposition Members in this respect, but a visit to Mapai, or to Mozambique, would show that there have been very considerable atrocities and very considerable indiscriminate killings inside Mozambique as a result of the actions of the Rhodesian security forces.

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

My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to do so, but I hope to visit Ankara at a mutually convenient time as soon as possible after a new Turkish Government have been confirmed in office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the difficulties that the Turks are having in creating a stable Government are producing great difficulties also for the people of Cyprus? Is he aware that a Cyprus settlement is being held up by this long delay? Will he give some sort of assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they will pursue a settlement in Cyprus, particularly in view of the recent court case in Britain, as Lord Denning's minority view, not supported by his two fellow judges, has caused great disquiet in the island?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will pursue with all possible effectiveness a solution in Cyprus. This is a high priority. I also assure him that we regard a stable solution to the political difficulties in Turkey as a crucial element in finding that solution.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the very lowest estimate, there are 2,000 Greek Cypriot citizens who have disappeared and not been accounted for, some of whom are alleged to be detained without trial and charge by the Turkish authorities on the mainland? Does he accept that until this problem is solved there will be no possibility of such a settlement?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of these allegations and, indeed, that I am concerned by them. But I am sure he will appreciate it when I tell him that all our investigations have failed to produce hard evidence. If he has hard evidence. I should like to see it.

When the Minister makes his visit to Ankara, will he undertake to assure the Turkish Government that in this country we are deeply appreciative of their loyalty to and continuing support for the NATO Alliance? Will he further assure the Turkish Government that we accept fully their special relationship with the European Community and that we shall do all we possibly can in the future to protect that special relationship?

We recognise, of course, the importance of the relationship of Turkey to the European Economic Community, and we also recognise the military contribution by Turkey to the defence of the south-eastern flank of NATO.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of Government policy with regard to a settlement in Rhodesia.

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

The Anglo-United States Consultative Group has completed a further round of consultations in Africa. I have studied its report and am considering urgently how best to proceed with the present initiative.

Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the reported discrepancy between the statements of the British diplomat, Mr. Graham, who has indicated that the Rhodesian authorities are now prepared to contemplate British supervision of Rhodesia during a transition period, and the denial of the Smith regime a day later that such an agreement had been reached?

It is very difficult to comment on these allegations. I think it is best to try to pursue a course of negotiations without exchanging public statements. But the statement issued by Mr. Smith's spokesman, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was a very dis- appointing one, and certainly in some parts it conflicts with the report that I had from Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low.

In the light of recent developments, is it not now clear that time is running out? Will the right hon. Gentleman now consider establishing a permanent mission to prepare for a referendum to determine an interim Government? Further, will he now report on the discussions that he is reported to have had concerning the presence of a Commonwealth or British force to safeguard the security of Rhodesia during an interim period of government?

I think that time, in some senses, has been running out ever since the illegal declaration of independence. I do not hide the fact that I think that the situation is deteriorating. It has been deteriorating steadily now for some years, particularly since the armed struggle has gathered momentum.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key factor on the ground at the moment is the continuing flow of oil to Mr. Smith's war machine? What steps will Britain and the United States take to interdict that flow of oil, since mere representations will have no effect?

There is no physical way that we can interdict, in the sense of using force. What is necessary is to bring some influence to bear on the South African Government, who, ever since the change of Government in Mozambique, have allowed oil to flow into Rhodesia, in direct contravention of the sanctions. But the whole question of how this can be done, particularly in relation to subsidiaries of international oil companies. is under investigation in this country and in many other areas. I believe that this is a central problem, which will have to be faced if the armed struggle continues in Rhodesia.

Does the Secretary of State realise that we are very anxious at the thought of this House going into recess in the state of uncertainty that currently exists and the condition which the right hon. Gentleman himself has referred to as a deteriorating one? Does he know that the reference to the people through the ballot box which we have so long advocated cannot be achieved without proper advice from Salisbury itself and that the delay in setting up a mission in Salisbury to advise him and this country how to set about such a reference to the people is long overdue? Can he now please assure us that there will be a full statement to the House before the House rues, so that these and other matters may be adequately discussed?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern over the matter. I do not think that:I should promise to make a statement if I have nothing to say, but I believe that were there to be any changes in the situation which the House would wish to be aware of I should let the House know. The House should know that I intend to go to see Secretary of State Vance in Washington on Saturday next week.

Returning to the subject of the breaking of oil sanctions, what action are the Government taking to follow up the communique issued at the end of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in June? In particular, is our legislation being re-examined with a view to reinforcing and strengthening enforcement procedures, and what steps are we taking to persuade other countries to do the same?

As my hon. Friend knows, under our legislation I have established the inquiry under Mr. Bingham to look into allegations about oil sanctions busting, but I think that our own legislation is strong enough. There have been no cases in which we have not had powers to deal with breaches when they have come to our notice. The problem is those companies in South Africa operating under South African legislation. We have referred to the United Nations Sanctions Committee over the years many different breaches of sanctions orders and we are taking all steps that we can to tighten up existing sanctions. Also, of course, there are pressures for an extension of sanctions.

After the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to consult Mr. Vance, will he take the opportunity that that presents to put out a clear definition of majority rule, which one hopes means the civilised administration of alternating majorities freely elected under the rule of law?

I have often told the House that I see majority rule as being based on the widest possible franchise, and it is my judgment that a constitution that was not based on one man, one vote would be unacceptable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Belize, in the light of the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference.

I held talks with the Guatemalan Foreign Minister in Washington last week. I will, with permission circulate the agreed communiqué in the Official Report. It was necessary to take steps to strengthen our garrison in Belize but I believe both sides wish to reduce tension and resume the search for a negotiated settlement. With this in view, I will be visiting Guatemala shortly for further talks.

In view of the widespread international support for the British Government's commitment to ensuring the safety of Belize against invasion from Guatemala, will the Minister now take an urgent diplomatic initiative to obtain the help of Commonwealth and regional Caribbean Governments in ensuring that Belize can obtain viable independence—especially in the light of the offered support from the Commonwealth Heads of Government?

As the hon. Gentleman says, there has been widespread international support for the desire of Belize to become independent as quickly as possible. But we think that the best way to provide long-term security for Belize is by providing a negotiated agreement and settlement with its neighbour, Guatemala, with which both sides will have to live, irrespective of the situation.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not my Question No. 28, dealing with the same subject, be taken with this Question?

I cannot answer for the Minister, but if a Question is a long way down the list it usually has to wait.

Reverting to the original Question, is it not a fact that at the Commonwealth Conference in Kingston a suggestion was made of a Commonwealth military guarantee for Belize? Could that be reactivated? Secondly, is it the Government's view that the Guatemalans have no legal claim to any of the territory that they are claiming? Thirdly, have investigations been concluded in regard to the 26 tons of ammunition and arms that were seized in Barbados and that passed through London Airport?

On the first question, this matter was raised at the Kingston Conference and again at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting here. We feel that the best way of pursuing a peaceful settlement and ensuring the security of Belize is to enter into direct negotiations with the Guatemalan Government, at which negotiations alongside me always is Mr. Price and his fellow Belizean delegates. As for the Barbados incident, that is for the Barbadian Government, but they have been conducting investigations and have impounded the armaments that were on board the plane. On the last point, of course we dispute the legality of the Guatemalan claim, although in fairness to them I should say that they dispute our legal right in this respect.

How can we be absolutely sure that, granted the smallness of the population and the poverty of the State, there are not quite a number of people, apart from their leaders, who would acquiesce in joining Guatemala? Can we be sure of that?

We can be absolutely sure that the overwhelming majority of Belizeans wish to be Belizean. They have evolved democratic institutions of their own, as a dependent territory. I think that that wish and aspiration is shared not only by the Government of Belize but by the overwhelming majority of Belizean people. The fact that the Belizean Opposition members were a part of the delegation attending the negotiations and that they have made a statement to that effect bears testimony to it.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the importance of the integrity of Belize to the whole Caribbean area. which is watching this situation closely? Will he beware of any sell-out of the southern part of Belize, where obviously the Guatemalans have a particular interest in relation to oil, since that would be damaging to the future of Belize as a State?

One should not talk in terms of a sell-out. We are trying to find different ways of bridging the gap between ourselves and the Guatemalan Government—a gap that has existed for generations. Terms like "sell-out" are not appropriate to the nature of these negotiations.

Is it not an extraordinary point of view that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has advanced? Is it not a fact that almost everybody who knows about Belize knows that, whatever else they may disagree about, almost no one in Belize wants to be governed by Guatemala?

I think that my hon. Friend was putting a question, and I am certain that my answer and the point that the hon. Member has just made reflect overwhelmingly the views of all but perhaps a handful of people in Belize. They are Belizean and they believe in self-determination and the future of their own small country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the statement by the EEC countries on Middle East affairs.

I have nothing to add to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 30th June.

As the EEC Ministers have accepted a rather controversial statement on the terrorist PLO and the homeland, will the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in Europe speak out clearly about all the problems associated with the Arab boycott of British goods of companies trading with Israel and the loss of British jobs that has resulted? Will he take account of the French Government's experience in their attempt to amend Article 32 of the French penal code to guide his colleagues and himself in this difficult area?

I deplore boycotts of all kinds. This one is not as effective as is often claimed, but I wish that it did not exist. We shall look at any measures that will reduce the effects of the boycott. As I said in an Adjournment debate, our view on the boycott is well known, and I emphasise it again today.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us welcome this statement from the EEC Heads of Government as a statement of the truth which has so often been left unsaid in the past, particularly in regard to the rights of the Palestinians to a homeland and the admissibility of the acquisition of territories by force by Israel?

The danger is that each side takes up one side of the statement. The statement must be read as a whole. It rightly pays attention to the Palestinian homeland and the question of territories occupied by Israel. It also draws attention to the quality of the peace in the Middle East and the right of Israel to exist. It may be said by some that these are conflicting statements, but I do not think so. They are essential elements for any negotiated settlement. We need to have a series of negotiations on this problem, otherwise the world will be faced with a serious conflict in the Middle East.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that this statement, taken in conjunction with the already specific bias towards Arab countries that is very prevalent in the economic protocol of the EEC, will only lead to a greater degree of disquiet in Israel and among those who wish to see the maintenance of a democratic State in the Middle East?

I strongly adhere to the right of Israel to exist and I wish to see a democratic country upheld in this region. Many of those who support the Arab cause also believe in this situation. I do not think that the right of Israel to exist is a serious issue among sensible leaders of the Arab world. We must negotiate on the controversial question over the territories, particularly the land that was in dispute after the 1967 war. We must achieve a stable environment, with some measure of security for Israel in new territory which would be its country. This must be negotiated. It is possible for this to be done if we approach it with the balance that we envisage in the statement.

The Foreign Secretary may wish to be even-handed. but the statement is not seen in that light in Israel. There has been considerable concern there about it, as there has been about the diplomacy of President Carter.

That may be the view of Israel, but the Israelis must take account of the justice of the case and the views of the world. They have always accepted that any settlement would be on the basis of Resolution 242. Implicit in this is the fact that the acquired territory will have to form part of the negotiated settlement, and some of it will have to be given back. The question of the Palestinians has long been controversial, but there is growing opinion, supported by President Carter, that the homeland will have to be part of any settlement. We have not prejudged the question of what that homeland would consist of, and this will be subject to negotiations.

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

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

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

I met the Foreign Ministers of Community countries yesterday at a political co-operation meeting. I expect to meet them again at the Foreign Affairs Council on 26th July.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets his colleagues on 26th July, no doubt he will have an opportunity to discuss the common fisheries policy. Will he make it clear that there is a growing body of opinion in this country which believes that if the EEC persists with its obstinate and greedy attempt to take over our fishing stocks it will be the end of the Common Market for us?

No one in the Council of Foreign Ministers is unaware of the very strong feelings in this country about the common fisheries policy. My colleagues are well aware that this policy will have to be substantially readjusted to meet the legitimate claims of a number of States with fishing interests—not just Britain, but Ireland and other countries. In the light of the 200-mile limit we must have a common fisheries policy that is more attuned to the interests of the nine member States. This will have to be negotiated. There is recognition in the Community that there will have to be compromise on all steps. I am confident that the Minister of Agriculture will achieve a settlement of this vexed issue.

As foreign affairs are not strictly subject to the Treaty of Rome, will the Foreign Secretary propose that at the next Council meeting Ministers should be joined by the EFTA Foreign Ministers, particularly now that the free-trade area is down to zero tariffs? Will he also suggest that the new applicant member States, once they have made their applications, should also be invited to attend the Council of Ministers meeting in order to get a foretaste of life in the Community and also to stage a grand alliance of Foreign Ministers of Europe? Would that not be more truly representative of Europe than just a meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Nine?

Discussions take place in the Council of Europe among 19 countries on matters of common interest. Membership of the EEC is more committed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, than membership of EFTA, and it is best to keep Community affairs within the Council of Nine and widen the circle to a Council of 19 when it is appropriate.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets his Common Market friends, will his enthusiasm for the EEC spread as far as accepting and supporting the report of the Common Market officials who predicted that next year Britain would have an economic growth of 3 per cent. and that wage increases of more than 10 per cent. could have a beneficial refiationary effect on our economy, because the extra money spent would help to generate more jobs? Is this not the first bit of common sense that has come out of the Common Market?

I am glad to see that my hon. Friend has found something in the Common Market on which to comment favourably. I hope that we shall achieve a faster rate of economic growth.

Is it not now plain, particularly following last week's vote on the direct elections legislation, that it is almost impossible to make a success of British membership of the EEC so long as there are Government Ministers who work openly and systematically to destroy it?

I do not believe that to be the case. The Opposition must accept the fact that there are, have been, and, I regret, will continue to be for some time, substantial differences of view on the issue of Europe. It is one thing to hold a different view but another to suggest that people are prepared systematically to undermine our membership of the Community. That is not the case, and it is not the record. I prefer to interpret the free vote of the House of Commons on this issue as indicating that there are an overwhelming majority in the House who want direct elections. I hope that we shall now manage to carry the legislation through.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about his latest talks with the other Foreign Ministers of the EEC regarding the Belgrade Review Conference.

Various aspects of the Belgrade CSCE follow-up meeting were discussed at meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council on 21st June and at the ministerial political co-operation meeting on 12th July. On the latter occasion Foreign Ministers received a report from the Political Committee on the progress of the Belgrade preparatory meeting. We shall continue to keep a close watch on the course of that meeting with a view to ensuring that the arrangements agreed there allow for a thorough review of implementation of the Final Act at the main meeting in the autumn.

Will the Minister urge the Secretary of State in these discussions to resist the idea that the Soviet Union might abandon détente because of the moderate criticism made in the West of Soviet violation of human rights? Is it not clear that détente should be seen not as a favour granted by the Soviet Union to the West but as a matter in which the Soviet Union has an interest for a variety of reasons, including economic ones?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I personally share his view. I believe that the Soviet Union sees a strong national interest in the maintenance of détente, and particularly in continuing good relations with the United States Government. I agree that we should not be deterred from stating our views about human rights and other matters at the Belgrade Conference for fear that the whole future of détente may be imperilled.

Did the talks cover the concern expressed at the July session of the European Parliament about the human rights of Soviet Jews—a concern expressed among all political groupings in the Parliament? Will the Minister urge the Soviet Union to go for a much more open exchange of information about Soviet Jewish prisoners, many of whom have been adopted by individual Members of Parliament in the various Parliaments of the EEC?

Concern on that matter is deeply felt in this House and in the Common Market as a whole. The hon. Member can be sure that the Government reflect those views in our discussions. Discussions in the EEC have been related mainly to the preliminary Belgrade meeting, which is dealing with the organisation of the main meeting, which will not begin until the autumn.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of discussing with his fellow EEC Ministers the repugnance felt in many quarters at the decision of the President of the United States to go ahead with the production of the neutron bomb, particularly bear- ing in mind the disarmament aspects of the forthcoming Belgrade Conference?

I do not think that is closely related to the Question on the Order Paper, but I shall pass on my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he was satisfied with the progress made towards greater European co-operation during the United Kingdom's tenure of the presidency.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the progress made by the Council of Ministers in promoting agreed Community policies under his chairmanship in the six-month period of United Kingdom presidency which ended on 30th June.

A full account of progress made in the Community during the United Kingdom presidency will be given in the White Paper which the Government intend very shortly to lay before Parliament and which will provide an opportunity for a debate on the subject.

Compared with what was said at the beginning of our tenure of the presidency, do the Government believe that they have achieved any improvements in the Community's legislative procedures? What areas offer the most scope for future progress in this regard? Is there a case for strengthening Coreper—and, if so, how?

I do not think we have made any improvement in legislative procedures. I have always hoped that it might be possible to separate legislative activities from political discussions. But this has so far proved difficult to do because there are genuine difficulties. As for Coreper, at the last Council of our presidency we made an experiment by referring more of the detailed amendments to Coreper and we asked the Commissioners to attend. Having assessed the general policies coming before the Foreign Affairs Council, I think that it was considered a success; indeed, the incoming Belgian presidency said that it intended to follow the same pattern.

Is it also correct to say that in this period, despite my right hon. Friend's starry-eyed endorsement of the Common Market, all the recent opinion polls have shown that the majority of the British people want to get out of the Common Market? When he gets back across there, will the Foreign Secretary leave a message with that other Eurofanatic, Roy Jenkins, and tell him that the more he makes arrogant speeches in this country attacking those of us who voted the other night on behalf of the British people, and the more he lies about the success of the Common Market, the more the British people will come to understand that he is the man who has lined his pockets all the way to Brussels?

I resent that—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper—

Will the hon. Member raise his point of order after Questions?

I will raise it now, Mr. Speaker. Is it proper for an hon. Member to use the word "lie" about a most distinguished ex-Member of this House, who is serving his country abroad?

Order. I shall deal with the matter quickly. The word would be absolutely out of order if applied to an hon. Member of this House, and it is distasteful when applied to somebody outside.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you explain what is distasteful about the statement made by my hon. Friend, who said that certain people had gone to the Common Market with huge salaries?

Taste is an individual matter, but to refer to somebody as a liar when he is not here to answer for himself is, in my judgment, and only in my judgment, distasteful.

The views of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the Common Market are well known and I respect them. My views are also well known, and I think that my hon. Friend respects them, too. I think that, on reflection, when he reads what he said in Hansard, he will agree that it is better not to make such statements in this House under the guise of privilege in relation to a man who has served this House and the country with great distinction. My hon. Friend may hold different views, but it is not worthy of him to make such comments. I ask him to consider the words he used and to withdraw them.

Will the Foreign Secretary disregard the contemptible words used by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who is pursuing the normal line he takes, based on ignorance of the Common Market and on complete and utter prejudice? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that in the last six months of British presidency the Council of Ministers has not had the greatest success and that our reputation in Europe continues to fall because of the behaviour of Ministers who lower the standard of this country and impede our ability to achieve what is needed in the Common Market? Is it not true that only now, after we have given up the presidency, is there any chance of the JET project coming to the United Kingdom?

I completely reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. I do not believe that that is the view of Europe. The hon. Gentleman and some of the British Press have been totally misled by some of the reports coming out of Brussels, which are highly partial and totally geared to the Commission's point of view.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I bow to the ruling that you made a moment ago when you said that you would rather have points of order raised after Questions. However, you gave way to hon. Members who raised points of order then, even against your wish and desire. I therefore want to raise the matter on a point of order at the later time that you suggested.

What about my hon. Friend's trip to Paris?

Order. Hon Members should realise that I want to hear the point of order. Will one hon. Member in particular who has a strong voice—he is not even listening—please co-operate and allow me to hear?

Each of those four or five former hon. Members all claimed to be always in favour of a prices and incomes policy—while it never applied to them.

Our privilege in this House, which has been protected for centuries, enables us to carry out our duties as hon. Members of this Mother of Parliaments. There are strict rules about what may go on the Order Paper, not only concerning hon. Members but concerning people outside the House who are unable to answer. Our privilege should be guarded carefully and used jealously. However, I undertake to look at what has been said by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that we can now leave the matter there and not pursue it.

Further to what you said, Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order about what was said by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds). The hon. Gentleman said that Roy Jenkins had left the House to serve his country. In fact, that is the one thing that he has not done and that he should not do because he should be serving the Community. That is an important point—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is now really pursuing an argument. As Pilate said a long time ago, truth is open to many interpretations. That is a paraphrase.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I accept the slight correction, and I add the words "and the Community" to my phrase. I should also like to make a correction, because I was incorrect in saying that the last swanning of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) at the expense of the British electorate was to Paris. It was actually four days in Antwerp.

Fur her to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, if you make a ruling from the Chair it is not within our capabilities, capacities or even good luck ever to consider questioning what you say. When you describe something that has been said in the House as "distasteful", we must accept that. I hope that you will not consider it necessary to explain what you considered to be distasteful, which was so obvious to everyone else.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The incident encompasses a matter of some principle, namely, whether it is in order for an hon. Member to describe someone outside the House as a liar, to use the Anglo-Saxon four-letter preference of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), or to use the phrase "a terminological inexactitude" as the more modest of us would suggest. It would be helpful if you, Mr. Speaker, having considered the matter, would make known to the House your considered ruling on whether one may describe the actions of those outside the House as lies.

I must say to the House at once that on the day that the House did me the honour of electing me to the Chair I said that what undermines the dignity of the House also undermines its authority at the end of the day. I shall, of course, look at this matter because we are all enjoined to use parliamentary language, however strongly we may feel, in referring to each other. I should expect the same parliamentary language to be applied to those outside the House.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, about those outside the House being categorised as liars, self-seekers or whatever by hon. Members. I agree that it is quite wrong for hon. Members to use such terminology on a regular basis. However, if hon. Members genuinely believe that certain people are liars or crooks, they ought to say so in the House. I have always understood that hon. Members have that right and are protected by privilege in exercising it.

I shall deal with that point later.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the matter has to some extent been predetermined. For example, it is surely in order to call Mr. John Stonehouse a liar, because the House of Lords, in its judicial capacity, has already ruled that he is by its dismissal of his appeal. Surely I am right to regard Richard Nixon as a liar, a crook and a person who has polluted American life in every way, bearing in mind that he was told to resign or be impeached.

Order. I am astonished at the number of hon. Members who wish to contribute to this matter.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although "Erskine May" has rules about the sort of language that it is proper to use in the House about the Royal Family and the judiciary, many of us on the Government Benches would be disturbed if, by your ruling, you added to that list the Commission of the European Communities. I ask you to take that fully into account in any considered ruling that you may give.

As we leave this subject, I hope that everyone realises that those of us who are here now are merely transitory trustees, for this generation, of the good name of the House and that we should use language that is worthy of the dignity of this House. Even when, to take up the point of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer), an hon. Member feels that he has something that he can reveal only in this House and uses our privilege to do so, right hon. and hon. Members should be careful in their choice of language.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. Member who had the next Question on the Order Paper, may I suggest that it would be better to revert to the practice of hon. Members, even those with loud voices, raising points of order at the end of Question Time rather than in the middle?

I am dependent upon the House in this matter. As a rule, when I ask hon. Members to leave a point of order to the end of Question Time, they have the courtesy to do so. However, if an hon. Member is boiling over it is understandable that he will not wish to do that, and we usually get rid of the issue quickly.

On a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are probably aware that the Government have today published an important White Paper about the future of the water industry. In that White Paper the Government have set out their plans to extinguish the British Waterways Board. Is it usual that no Government Minister should make a statement to enable the House to have a preliminary opportunity to put questions to the Government about the White Paper?

That depends upon the Minister and whether he seeks leave to make a statement to the House. I have not yet received such a request and I do not know whether one will be forthcoming later.