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

At a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February.

When the Foreign Secretary next meets Mr. Roy Jenkins, will he consult a very distinguished member of the Labour Party on what can be done to prevent the British Labour Party from drifting into an attitude of total non-cooperation and hostility towards the Community, on which the prosperity as well as the security of this country now depend?

Mr. Roy Jenkins is President of the Commission and has a responsibility for all member States. I think that he would be the first to say that he would no longer wish to involve himself, or ought to involve himself, in domestic politics in this country in that way.

Will my right hon. Friend, when he has further consultations with the President of the Commission, ask him whether, possibly as a side wind of the industrial position here, we should be allowed to release stocks of surplus food from intervention, to make up for the shortages existing here, or are we beholden to the Commission as to how those stocks should be disposed of?

How we deal with the substantial food surpluses is a subject of great concern. It has also been a subject of considerable criticism at times that some of the decisions for disposal, which are taken on a Community basis and not on a national basis, have meant that these surpluses have gone, at very reduced and subsidised prices, to countries which have not nearly as strong a claim to them as have some of the member States.

With regard to the question of non-co-operation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), can the Foreign Secretary explain the non-co-operation of France over the European monetary system, why France has done this, and what the British Government's attitude is towards the problem?

It is very difficult to be exactly clear why the French have done it, but one factor is that the French have always recognised, ever since they have been members of the EEC, that it is wholly legitimate to stand up for a national interest. The French see it as a major national interest to remove what they regard as the unfair advantage of German agricultural products because of the existence of the MCA system which works against the interests of the French farmer, as the French Government see them, and so they stand up for French interests. They are supported by the French Assembly and by the French newspapers. Some Conservative Members might do well to remember that it would not be a bad idea if, occasionally, the Official Opposition were to stand up for the British Government when we stand up in Brussels for a national interest.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet his opposite numbers in the Council of Ministers.

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

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

I expect to meet my EEC colleagues next at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 6th February.

I call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.

Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues, in view of his strident calls for British interests, which he demonstrated once again a few moments ago, that he is exceptionally pleased that the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party is drawing up an extremely anti-Common Market manifesto for the direct elections?

Will my right hon. Friend explain that he is especially pleased that that manifesto will not be diluted by the Cabinet, since it has no rights in this matter, as it has in the drawing up of the General Election manifesto, and that the candidates who will be taking part in the elections on behalf of the Labour Party will be fighting for the restoration of British rights, in accordance with the Foreign Secretary's views, just pronounced, and for the reform of the Common Market structure, and with a policy for getting out in the event of failure?

I do not think that the Floor of the House of Commons is the place for my hon. Friend and myself to argue about who should be on the NEC. As to what the NEC should do in any given situation, one reason why I opposed my hon. Friend in the elections to the NEC is that I have a different view from him about how the NEC should conduct itself.

Will the Foreign Secretary accept and tell the House that none of the desirable reforms in the operation of the Common Market will be achieved, and that no better balance will be achieved in the Community budget, if the Government are tempted to proceed on the destructive and flat earth lines recommended by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?

The Government have, over three to four years of painstaking and successful chipping away at some of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the common agricultural policy, produced significant progress. I believe that the next price fixing and the discussions on MCAs will be another opportunity to put constructively a case for reform which is not just in the British national interest but happens to be in the interest of consumers in all the member States.

Will the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government show much more public muscle in dissociating themselves from the hysterical anti-EEC noises made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other members of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, which can only be to the disadvantage of the national interest of the United Kingdom? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary, in view of the faltering Middle East peace plan, see any new initiatives in the Middle East which he and other EEC Foreign Ministers could take in concert?

It would be better if Conservative Members would spend a little less time worrying about divisions within the Labour Party and attitudes to Europe, and concentrate a little more on some of the differences of attitude on their own side, and also on the overall, thrust of the Conservative Party's position in relation to Europe, which is one of constantly denigrating its own Government when that Government are fighting for a national interest. This gives the appearance in Brussels that, were a Conservative Government ever to come to office, they would be a complete pushover.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues at the Foreign Ministers' Council, will he remind them of the statements that he made during the course of the Bill dealing with direct elections to the EEC Assembly, when he said that in his opinion the direct election to the EEC was no threat to the powers of this House? Will he now tell the House the position about the budget of the EEC? Is it not correct that it is held up because of the powers of the unelected EEC Assembly? Is not there a quarrel with the Council over amounts running into hundreds of millions of pounds? Does not that bode ill for the powers of this House when there is an elected Assembly, which will use these powers as a bargaining counter?

The dispute between the Council and the Assembly would be exactly the same whether or not the Assembly was directly elected. The reason why it was discussed in the Council on Monday was that the British Government, among other member States, hold very strongly to the view that it should not be in the power of the Assembly—and it is not in the power of the Assembly in the treaties—to fix the budget. The budget must be fixed by the body which is responsible for raising the revenue. That body is the Council of Ministers. Therefore, we shall not accept that the fixing of the budget total can be an issue for the Assembly. As long as this issue remains unresolved, we shall remain determined in our stance.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, unlike the French Government, he and his colleagues and party have appeared to spend most of their time chipping away at the concept of the Community, that the result has been a steady rundown in the bargaining strength of this country to protect its interests, that it will take us quite a time to rebuild it and that we regard it as essential in our own interests that we should?

I think that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must recognise certain facts. The majority of people in this country did not want to enter the EEC in 1972 and 1973. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may wish to dispute that allegation, but that is my belief. I do not believe that politicians need to conduct referendums to determine political issues. We should be able to do that by exercising our judgment.

There has been a substantial change in the attitudes of people in this country since we have been a member of the Community. There are still disagreements—disagreements held by supporters of the Conservative Party and of the Labour Party—about the advisability of our entry, but most people are determined to make a useful, sensible contribution to the European Community. I believe that is what we should do, and, in doing it, we should not be afraid to stand up for a legitimate national interest.

Will the Foreign Secretary draw to the attention of EEC leaders the prices for basic commodities, such as meat and wheat, obtaining in North America at present? Does he appreciate that if we were not in the Common Market we would be able to buy at those much reduced prices? Does he feel that the Government would do better to concentrate on the common agricultural policy to combat inflation than to try to pressurise road haulage drivers to give up their just claim?

We must try to keep down common prices. If we are successful in holding common prices, they will show greater similarity to world prices. World prices move around. My hon. Friend was right in what he said, but there have been times when the world wheat price has been higher than the Community price. I do not think that we shall ever get an exact parity of prices between the Community and the world. We wish to reduce progressively the wide disparity which still exists between overall international food prices and European food prices. I think that we are having some limited success in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers plans next to meet officially to prepare submissions for the next European Council summit meeting.

There will be meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February and 6th March. Unless the presidency propose other arrangements, the preparations for the European Council will therefore be finally reviewed by Foreign Ministers a week before its meeting on 12th and 13th March.

Does the Minister expect or, indeed, hope that by the time of the next summit Britain will be able to join the EMS, provided that it is then working satisfactorily?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman listened attentively to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this matter. We did not enter because we did not believe that the criteria laid down for the operation of the scheme met the criteria which we felt would adequately protect and look to our interests. If things develop in the right direction, we shall review the position.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to make submissions on the common agricultural policy? If we cannot get any fundamental changes in that policy, will we make a clear statement that we shall withdraw from the Common Market until we get those changes?

I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended that at the European Council meeting there will be a review of developments in the common agricultural policy. As for the line that he advocates, I think that would be unfortunate, because the indications are that, through the stalwart stand being made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others, we are making progress towards reform.

When the agenda is being drawn up, will the Minister ensure that Iran is put on it so that EEC Ministers and leaders can discuss with France, where the Ayatollah Khomeini at present resides, why it has allowed him to carry on a vicious campaign against a country which is friendly to the West, particularly when he is one of the most reactionary bigots in history?

If the hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as he appears to do, he might be a little unhappy to leave such discussions until March.

Is it not increasingly clear that the EEC, far from uniting Western Europe, is becoming a cause of conflicts and disputes between Western European countries, by trying to force on them policies which they do not wish to pursue?

I do not share my right hon. Friend's analysis, but I endorse something which I believe underlines part of what he said. If we are genuinely building a real Community, it is tremendously important that the Commission and others realise that we must move at a pace which can be digested by all the member countries, and a pace which does not force member countries to take steps which are against their national interests.

In the Government's view, ought not the Community to attach especial importance to Turkey? Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to economic discussions at Guadeloupe. Ought not the Community to contemplate a much larger package of assistance to Turkey, and could this be considered before and at the summit meeting?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in the context of various Community meetings, Turkey is very high on the agenda. We have a special association agreement—one of the first such agreements—with Turkey. Turkey is anxious about the future of that agreement. The shape that the future should take in this respect is a matter to which we shall continue to give close attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the renegotiation of the Lome convention, with particular reference to the human rights issue.

The negotiations began formally with a ministerial meeting on 24th July, and the agreed objective is to complete them by the spring. A second ministerial meeting, which I attended for the United Kingdom, was held in Brussels on 21st December in order to take stock of the progress made so far and to indentify the issues requiring further negotiation. Human rights was among the subjects discussed, and it was agreed that there was a need for further discussion of the problem.

Is the Minister making progress on this matter of human rights? Is it Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue to press for some provision in the Lome convention for suspension of aid to countries which grossly and persistently violate human rights? Moreover, has he found that the developing countries recognise that this subject must be discussed, despite their natural reservations about their own sovereignty?

The hon. Gentleman has put the point fairly. One of the indications of the progress is that, increasingly, the ACP countries accept that this issue needs to be discussed. We are certain that in the Community's future aid programmes human rights must be given higher consideration and that the agreement should effectively reflect this need.

With regard to help for underdeveloped countries through the EEC, may I ask what is happening about the sugar producer countries of the Caribbean and of Mauritius, which seem to be suffering from regulations being made by the EEC which will make the standard of living in those poor countries much lower?

The special sugar arrangements are not part of the negotiations currently going on about the future of the Lome convention. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would find that reassuring, because the protocol on sugar firmly protects the interests of Commonwealth sugar producers, for whom, as we all know, the sale of their sugar crop is a matter of life or death.

Will the Minister give an assurance that Angola will not lie included in the renegotiated Lome convention as long as the existence of the Angolan Government is sustained only by the presence of 20,000 Cuban troops in that country?

The Community is anxious to work out an effective economic relationship with those countries which should properly belong to the ACP grouping. Certainly there is a strong argument that if we can get such effective economic arrangements this will enable them to have more balanced general political arrangements than might otherwise be the case.

Is not there a fundamental political contradiction in having one criterion, namely, human rights, for the Lome convention, and another criterion, namely, status quo, when dealing with countries such as Iran?

My right hon. Friend he Secretary of State has been very candid about this matter with the House on a number of occasions. The constant argument of the cynic throughout history is, that because it is impossible to make progress on the whole front at once one should take no steps forward. We believe that if one cares deeply about issues such as human rights it is important to approach the issue pragmatically, to build by getting results which can achieve progress in particular situations and have a cumulative effect.

Why, under the Lome convention, are Commonwealth countries in Africa given trading privileges into the Common Market which are denied to Commonwealth countries in Asia, such as India? Is not this a blatantly unfair discrimination, to which the Government were signatories? What do the Government intend to do about it?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a certain dichotomy here. The Government are emphatic that the Community must have an effective and growing programme of assistance to the so-called non-associates, because we do not want to see the Lome convention becoming a divisive measure in so far as our relationships with the Third World as a whole are concerned.