asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress made with the European Economic Community initiative aimed at securing the peaceful return of Palestinian land presently occupied by Israeli military forces.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received concerning Her Majesty's Government's changes in policy towards the Middle East.

M. Thorn has completed his first round of visits to the area and contacts with the various parties are continuing. Her Majesty's Government's aim is to secure the widest possible support for the balanced principles of the Venice declaration as a step towards a comprehensive settlement. Representations have been received from both critics and supporters of the Venice declaration.

Be it in Afghanistan or Palestine, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to uphold the right of the indigenous population to live their lives free from external domination? In the absence of an impartial United States policy, will my right hon. Friend continue to work as closely as he possibly can with his colleagues in the other eight EEC countries?

As my hon. Friend knows, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to secure a withdrawal of all Soviet troops in Afghanistan and a withdrawal from the occupied territories by Israel as part of a comprehensive settlement guaranteeing Israel's security. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to work closely with the other members of the Nine.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that now we have another war in the Middle East, this time between Iran and Iraq, it would be far better to support the permanent peace agreement, namely, the agreement between Egypt and Israel? Would it not be better for Her Majesty's Government to continue to support the Camp David agreement rather than pussyfoot around with this European initiative?

We support the Camp David agreement. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are aiming to build on that agreement rather than cut across it. He will also be aware that, although the agreement has been extremely successful between Egypt and Israel, it has been less successful in making progress over the Palestinian problem. That is why the Nine made their Venice declaration, which the hon. Gentleman will remember was warmly welcomed by President Sadat.

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will pay more attention to the excellent advice that has been tendered to him by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall). Perhaps M. Thorn is now engaged in self-solving the Iraqi-Iranian dispute. What purpose is he serving? At this stage my right hon. Friend must admit that if it were not for the Camp David agreement there might be a general conflagration in the Middle East.

I do not think that my right hon. Friend could have listened to what I said. I did not say that we were in any way opposed to the Camp David settlement. I said that we were seeking to build upon it. As he must recognise—I think that it is generally recognised—the Camp David agreement has so far made limited progress on the Palestinian problem as opposed to considerable progress between Egypt and Israel. We hope that things will get better.

Will the Government be careful in this and other contexts to repress the tendency of the European Economic Community to behave as if it were a State, since initiatives of this sort incur responsibilities that can only be borne and, therefore, only accepted, by nation States?

I do not think that I will follow the right hon. Gentleman into that form of metaphysical assertion. The fact is that the Nine have considerable interests in the Middle East and they have a considerable interest in trying to gain a comprehensive peaceful settlement in the Middle East. It would be a dereliction of duty if they washed their hands of the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Israeli Prime Minister physically moves his offices into occupied East Jerusalem the Foreign Secretary will instruct all his representatives not to visit the Prime Minister at those offices?

As my hon. Friend knows, we have made it quite clear that we do not recognise any unilateral actions taken over Jerusalem.

The Lord Privy Seal gave the House a very unrevealing reply to the first question. He also made some grudging comments about the great achievement of Camp David. Will the right hon. Gentleman be more specific? We know that M. Thorn had discussions in Tel Aviv and that he also had discussions with Mr. Arafat in Beirut. Is there any sign that progress has been made towards achieving the two main principles that were set out at the Venice summit? When will some type of formal report be made, or have the European Ministers and M. Thorn come to the conclusion that the timing is not right, that there are other major issues in the Middle East—which may have greater priority—and that they should wait until the American election is over, in order to have proper talks with the American Government as well?

I do not agree that I was grudging about Camp David. What I said would probably receive assent from virtually all the parties to the Camp David agreement. M. Thorn did not make a formal report. Contacts are continuing and we shall consider how best to proceed. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this is an extremely difficult matter. The idea put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir Hugh Fraser) and by the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that because there is another crisis in the Middle East it is less urgent to solve this crisis, is entirely erroneous.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the present situation in Afghanistan.

There are still about 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. They continue to face strong resistance. There is no sign that the Soviet Union is prepared to take account of the wishes of the Afghan people. A settlement will necessitate the complete withdrawal of Soviet troops and freedom for the Afghan people to choose their own Government.

Although I am grateful to my lion. Friend for that reply may I ask whether he agrees that it is vital to maintain international pressure on the Soviet Union to cease its aggression against Afghanistan? To that end, will he mobilise international support for the idea of a conference—perhaps on the lines of last year's Lancaster House talks—so that the people of Afghanistan might be afforded the same rights of self-determination as the people of Zimbabwe now enjoy?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of maintaining pressure on the Soviet Union. In the past 11 months the world has shown admirable recognition of the need to do that. The matter will come up again, within a week or two, at the United Nations General Assembly. A conference could be a useful move at the appropriate time. However, it would be important for all the relevant parties to be represented at such a conference, including representatives of the Afghan resistance. At present, I see no indication that the Soviet Union is prepared for a conference along those lines.

Has the Minister got any up-to-date figures for the number of Afghan refugees in Pakistan and elsewhere?

It is estimated that there are about 1 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan. That is an indication of the feelings of the Afghan people towards the Soviet occupation and the Babrak Karmal regime.

Is it not a scandal that 11 months after the Soviet invasion and occupation of Afghanistan, the gallant resistance fighters of that country have to take on a major slice of the Soviet war machine, including T72 tanks, Hind helicopter gunships, MiGs and Tupolevs, with virtually bare hands? Is it not time for the British Government to state openly that they will supply arms of the required calibre to help those resisting Soviet imperialism?

I agree about the importance of the role that the Afghan resistance plays. The Afghan resistance movement is better equipped than it was at the beginning of the year. However, it would not help the resistance movement if we were to be specific about its sources of assistance. It is clear that Soviet forces have suffered several thousand casualties and we have had reports of substantial losses of helicopter gunships belonging to the Soviet Union.

As regards maintaining pressure on the Karmal Government, which on all the evidence has not increased its internal support, does it occur to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends that this matter could be raised in the credentials committee of the United Nations? Will the hon. Gentleman also explain why he decided to vote for the Pol Pot Government?

The Pol Pot question is an entirely separate matter. As regards the credentials of the Karmal regime, there was clearly insufficient support for that question to be raised.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals he now has to resolve the difficulties facing Cyprus.

Intercommunal talks under United Nations auspices, the object of which is to resolve the Cyprus problem, resumed in Nicosia on 16 September and are continuing. The Government welcome this, believing such talks to be the best way to secure a just and lasting settlement.

Given that there is now a different Government in Turkey, and that Greece is seeking a closer relationship with NATO, is not the time right for a British initiative? Will the Lord Privy Seal take steps towards meeting the Turkish and Greek Governments with a view to getting meaningful negotiations going at governmental level?

I agree with the prolegomena of the hon. Gentleman's question. United Nations' talks are being held. It is early days, but so far they have gone quite well. It is right for all interested Governments—and we are more interested than almost anybody else—to support the intercommunal talks.

The Lord Privy Seal will know that it is widely and understandably held in Cyprus that part of the problem lies in Ankara. Have the Government had any direct discussions with the Turkish authorities? What response has he had?

Part of the problem certainly lies outside Cyprus. The intercommunal talks have got off to a reasonably good start. No one would want to be too hopeful, but they have got off to a better start than they did before. We want to build on that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on progress in establishing a Middle East settlement; and if he will ensure that Her Majesty's Government give no formal recognition to the Palestine Liberation Organisation in any negotiations so long as the organisation continues to call for the destruction of the State of Israel.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give an undertaking that no Minister will meet representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation until the Palestine Liberation Organisation has agreed unequivocally Israel's right to exist in secure recognised boundaries.

We have consistently called on the the PLO to accept Israel's right to a secure existence, and will continue to do so. That would be an essential element in any settlement, but it would not be helpful to the cause of peace for us to tie our hands by giving any such undertaking. But our policy on recognition of the PLO remains unchanged.

When the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend consider the criteria to be adopted as regards the granting of statehood, will he make clear that no people can expect to become a State if they try, or threaten, to obliterate another nation?

The hon. Gentleman knows our policy, because it is embodied in the Venice declaration. That means recognition by the PLO of Israel's right to exist, and recognition by Israel of the Palestinians' right. That is our policy, and will remain our policy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might be an opportune moment, given the European initiative, for the EEC Governments to point out forcibly to the Government of Israel that the best solution would be for the PLO to recognise Israel's right to existence behind secure and guaranteed borders at precisely the same time as Israel recognises the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination and to a State of their own within 25 per cent. of Palestine?

That solution has been put forward for many years by Dr. Nahum Goldmann, who, as the House knows, is an extremely distinguished—if not the most distinguished—Zionist. That is one way forward. At present it is not the way that is most likely to prevail.

Has there been any indication from Israeli sources that the State of Israel would give any recognition whatsoever to the rights of the Palestinians to live in their own independent State?

I understand that Israel is still strongly opposed to any independent Palestinian State.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet the South African Ambassador to discuss Anglo-South African relations.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet the South African Ambassador in the immediate future.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the 17-year imprisonment of Mr. Nelson Mandela is in itself a great crime on the part of the South African authorities? Should not the British Government proclaim loudly and clearly that Nelson Mandela should be released?

The hon. Member may be aware that the British Government voted for resolution No. 473 at the United Nations Security Council on 13 June this year. That resolution called for the release of all those who had been imprisoned on political grounds, and that includes Mandela. The South African Government are well aware of the British Government's view on this matter.

Will my hon. Friend welcome the new South African Ambassador to this country; and, as the most important issue between our two countries now is the future of Namibia, will he say how the United Nations can be recognised as an impartial umpire when it takes the view that SWAPO is the sole and authentic voice of the Namibian people? I feel that that is totally untrue.

Of course we welcome the new ambassador. We believe in a policy of contract and dialogue between our two Governments as the most constructive approach. On the Namibian question, as my hon. Friend knows, we do not recognise, and never have recognised SWAPO as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. We take the view very strongly that it is up to the people of Namibia to determine who their representative should be. The United Nations team has recently been in South Africa, and it will report shortly to the Secretary-General.

Is it not clear that the latest United Nations mission to South Africa has once again been met by a blank denial by the South African Government that there will be any implementation of the UN plan? Since few of the Minister's colleagues deny the legitimacy of SWAPO and South Africa also denies it, why will they not put it to the test as quickly as possible? What will the British Government do to stop the South Africans' total prevarication on this issue?

I am not aware where the hon. Member gets his evidence. We are still awaiting the report which Dr. Wald- heim will make to the Security Council on the outcome of those extremely important talks last week in South Africa. We are not in a position to judge what progress has been made until we have that report.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is very important for this country to have good relations with the Government of South Africa, not only because of the strategic importance of South Africa but because that country has raw materials that are vital to the industries of the Western world? Will he not also make some statement from the Dispatch Box that we will make representations to the United Nations to ensure that not only SWAPO (E) is recognised as a negotiating body by the United Nations but that the Democratic Tumhalle Alliance, which is a multi-racial group doing wonderful work in Namibia and which has abolished all apartheid in that country, should also be recognised as a negotiating body within the UN?

I have been in South Africa recently and have had discussions on these problems prior to the visit of the UN team. During the course of the visit of the UN team last week, led by Mr. Brian Urquhart, discussions were held with the South African Government and leaders of several of the internal parties, including the DTA.

The Minister seems to be the only person who does not know that those talks last week broke down and that there was a stalemate. Is he not aware that continuing prevarication by the South African Government over the settlement in Namibia will only mean that more and more people will turn to the gun rather than the ballot box in order to find a solution?

I am very surprised that the hon. Member should make an assumption that last week's discussions led to a break-down. There is no basis upon which he can make that assumption. I hope that he will reconsider what he has said.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the French Government about the supply of weapons-grade uranium to Iraq.

Iraq is a party to the nonproliferation treaty. The supply of this material for a civil research reactor is under international safeguards. We are not satisfied that there are grounds to press the French to break their contracts.

Is the Minister aware that Iraq, in addition to being a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty, is also bound by treaties not to invade a neighbouring country? Since that country has manifestly violated that undertaking, is it not doubtful whether it can be held to its signature to the non-proliferation treaty? Is it not the height of folly to give a country which has shown such aggressive attitudes as Iraq has done recently the ability to make war with nuclear weapons which could begin a world confrontation? Since the Lord Privy Seal attaches so much importance to a combined policy by the EEC should he not say to the French gently that any hope of such a combined policy is being sacrificed on the altar of what the French believe to be their own national interest?

I agree that it would be a serious and unprecedented development if a party to the non-proliferation treaty were to break its obligations that it had solemnly entered into. But of course, the supply by France, which has been discussed by the Government with the French, was part of the normal provision for nuclear power which is allowed under the treaty, and it took place before the recent war.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that what the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) said about Iraq must apply to Israel with equal force? That country dishonestly obtained large quantities of nuclear material, widely believed to be for military purposes. Is he also aware that Israeli aircraft are daily attacking another independent country—the Lebanon—without being in a state of declared war? Should not this cause us equal apprehension?

One can have apprehension about nuclear proliferation where-ever it occurs. Of course, Israel is not a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty.

Since it is now generally acknowledged that Israel has nuclear weapons, with the assistance of South Africa, what information do the Government have about Israeli involvement in the air-raid on the nuclear centre in Iraq?

That was merely speculation and I can neither confirm nor deny it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the British attitude towards recognition of the Polisario Front.

We have not given official recognition to the Polisario Front. It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to accord recognition to such movements. In any event, to do so in this case would be inconsistent with our policy of neutrality on the Western Sahara dispute.

Is the Minister aware that 26 of the member States of the Organisation for African Unity have now recognised the Polisario Front as the representatives of the Saharan people? In the light of that, will he reconsider the British Government's position? Can he tell us whether the position of the British Government has in any way changed as a result of the visit of Her Majesty The Queen to Morocco this week?

On the latter part of that question, there is no reason why our policy should change following the visit of Her Majesty to Morocco, a country with which we have long-standing and close relations. Our attitude to Western Sahara is one of neutrality. That is the same view as is held by all our friends in the EEC and it is up to the OAU which is seeking to mediate—and there is no unanimity within the OAU on this—to do its best to find a settlement. We will support whatever agreement is reached between the parties.

Even if our policy towards Morocco has not changed, would it not be right for the Government to issue a strong protest about the discourtesy shown to Her Majesty The Queen in the past few days?

I take this opportunity to say that there has been no question of any insult being shown to Her Majesty. On the contrary, I am informed that she enjoyed herself during her visit to Morocco.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise at the United Nations as a threat to peace in Africa the repeated incursions into Angola by South African forces.

No, Sir. The United Nations Security Council has already debated the matter, and paragraph 6 of resolution 475 states that the Council remains seized of the matter.

Do the attacks on Angola derive directly from the continued illegal occupation of Namibia by South Africa? Will the Minister confirm that there is an agreed United Nations plan for peaceful transition to independence, which has the full support of the five negotiating powers but which is being obstructed only by South Africa? What pressure will be put on South Africa to cease that obstruction?

I reaffirm strongly that the British Government, together with the Group of Five, support as strongly as possible the proposal that the UN should supervise the elections in Namibia. As I said earlier, we are awaiting the report of the team that has been in South Africa for discussions. We hope that progress will shortly be made.

Does my hon. Friend agree that free and fair elections cannot be conducted in Namibia under United Nations auspices as long as the General Assembly regards only one party—SWAPO—as the sole representative of the people, when the United Nations organisation finances SWAPO and the Finnish Commissioner declares himself whole heartedly on the side of SWAPO? Does he accept that it cannot be a fair match when the referee has declared himself to be on one side?

During the discussions in South Africa last week between the UN team and the South African Government, the anxiety of the South African Government about the impartiality of the United Nations was discussed. I am sure that every effort was made to reassure them. With his experience, my right hon. Friend will know that there is a considerable distinction between resolutions passed by the General Assembly—and I have expressed the British Government's view about that resolution—and those passed by the Security Council, which has called on the United Nations to carry out free and fair elections, impartially, among all the parties in Namibia.

If the Minister did not like the term "broken down", which I used earlier, does he agree that the talks have at least reached a stalemate or have been baulked by the South African Government? What further action do the Government intend to take to end the stalemate?

Surprisingly, the hon. Gentleman seems to misunderstand the situation. We are awaiting the report to the Security Council from the United Nations team that has just been to South Africa. The hon. Gentleman makes repeated assumptions that the talks have broken down. He has no evidence for that. There is every prospect of progress in the near future.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would reflect well on the United Nations if occasionally it condemned the incursions into Namibia from Angola by SWAPO guerrillas, directed not against the South African security forces but against the Ovambo people, who are being killed and maimed on an increasingly large scale?

I agree that it is singularly important to make clear, as we and the Group of Five have done, that our condemnation of violence is not one-sided. Violence from any source hinders the prospect of a peacefully negotiated settlement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received about the reinstatement of the British Ambassador and the resumption of arms sales to Chile.

Since the announcements to the House of the restoration of Ambassadors in January and of the lifting of the arms embargo in July, both matters have been the subject of lively political debate. No arguments have been advanced, however, which lead us to conclude that either decision was unjustified.

As Claire Wilson's detention was reported by her sister to British consular officials in Chile on 18 July, will the Minister now admit that he knew of her detention and torture before he announced the ending of the arms embargo on 22 July and that he deliberately concealed that information in order to curry favour with his fascist friends? As he has failed to stand up for the basic human rights of a British subject, will he do the honourable and decent thing and resign?

The hon. Gentleman will be disappointed to know that, on hearing of Miss Wilson's detention, the British Ambassador in Santiago managed to get her released on 18 July. It was not until 22 July that she made any complaint of maltreatment. That information was not received in London until 23 July, after the lifting of the arms embargo was announced.

Bearing in mind the concern on both sides of the House about unemployment, does my hon. Friend agree that, if we do not supply Chile with military equipment, the French certainly will, which will only transfer British jobs to French workers? Will he refute the attacks on the British Ambassador and thank him for his intervention, which went beyond his call of duty, on behalf of Miss Wilson, who has the most tenuous connections with the United Kingdom?

She is a British citizen, that is all.

I believe that the presence of the British Ambassador was instrumental in securing the early release of Miss Wilson. I also believe that nations should trade in all commodities, save those arms that can be used for internal repression. We pursue the same policy as our predecessors, only not selectively.

May I remind the Minister of the reply given in the other place by one of his colleagues on 10 March, when he said that the Government would not export arms to a country that was guilty of torture? Does the Minister accept that he has sought to justify such action on the grounds that it was only one little case of torture, but we know very well that civil rights in Chile have not improved? They have deteriorated. Furthermore, is he aware that the present regime, through a plebiscite, has taken powers to maintain itself for the next decade? Should he not reconsider the matter? Would it not be very much in the interests of this country and its good name for the Government to say that we will not supply arms to such a regime? If the Minister is worried about the arms being supplied by another European country, why does he not get his right hon. Friend to raise the matter at the so-called Council of Foreign Ministers?

My noble Friend made it clear that he was speaking of arms that could be used for internal repression, as the right hon. Gentleman will see if he checks the record. We do not approve of either the human rights record or, more still, the nature of the democracy or lack of democracy of a large number of countries. Some do not even have a terminal date for the autocratic power of the regime, yet 'such considerations never worried the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what response he has received from the Spanish Government on the situation regarding the free movement of persons between Spain and Gibraltar.

The Spanish Government have recently assured us that their commitment to the Lisbon agreement remains firm. The Goverment continue to work for its early implementation.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the situation is deteriorating and is not assisting the Gibraltarians? My right hon. Friend is aware of the recent visit I made to the mayors in El Campo, who are keen to have a settlement. Does he agree that there should be detente between the people of Gibraltar and the people of El Campo, with a view to arriving at a settlement? Does he further agree that it would be helpful to have the settlement before Christmas to avoid disappointment similar to that experienced by the people of Gibraltar on 3 June, when the gates remained closed?

I agree that the situation is deteriorating in the sense that the agreement that we hoped would come into force shortly after 1 June still has not come into effect. We greatly regret the delay. I agree with what my hon. Friend says about detente. I very much hope that the agreement will come into force well before Christmas.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate bilateral talks with the Soviet Government aimed at improving Ango-Soviet relationships and reducing world tension.

The Government are ready to work with the Soviet Union to reduce the causes of world tension and to develop bilaterial relations on a businesslike and constructive basis. We are looking for some sign, especially in relation to Afghanistan, that the Soviet Union is prepared to do likewise.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that approaches made from time to time by the West German and French Governments have proved helpful and that any initiative taken by countries on either side of the East-West power blocs to remove misunderstanding and distrust makes a contribution?

The simplest way of removing distrust and improving confidence would be for the Soviet Union to remove its forces from Afghanistan and to cease to breach the Helsinki agreement by tyrannising its own people.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now seek to renegotiate the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community.

No, Sir.

I rather thought that my right hon. Friend would give that answer, but time will prove a marvellous tutor. Can he bring to the attention of the House any industrialised country the currency of which has had a sudden and massive increase, boosted by the surging value of its raw materials and natural resources, and which, at the same time, had no control over its own trading policy? Could he say what happened to the industrial and manufacturing base of that country?

I am not sure that most people would entirely agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis of the situation and, unless he is suggesting import controls, I am not certain of the relevance of his question. He must realise that import controls are not the policy of the Government side of the House and are the policy of only part of the Labour side.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who strongly support our continued membership of the Community feel that the criticism that it receives is due more to what has not been done or attempted than to existing policies? Will he give an assurance that the Government will seek to give a lead in these matters by, for example, tackling employment policies, possibly through an increase in the size of the regional fund?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a lot in that. He will be aware that as a result of the 30 May agreement the Community is committed to restructuring the budget, during which many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised will inevitably come up.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Members use the word "renegotiate" in this sense it is a euphemism for "withdraw", though they are afraid to say so, particularly after the resounding support for our continued membership expressed at, for example, the Conservative Party conference? Is not the psychology of public opinion that, while people grumble about various detailed aspects of policy, which is natural, they nevertheless wish to remain in the EEC and to develop it institutionally through the strength of all the members?

I agree with my hon. Friend, though I do not think that it is fair to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is afraid to advocate withdrawal. Certainly, the contrast between the Conservative Party conference and the Labour Party conference on the question of Europe has been widely noted.

It will come as no surprise to the House that the Government have neither the will nor the wish to alter the unequal and shameful treaty of accession which a previous Conservative Government signed. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, there is in the unsatisfactory agreement reached on 30 May, a timetable for further discussions about the future of the CAP and the budget. Those are important matters and I wish to put a serious proposal to the Lord Privy Seal. On these vital matters will he circulate to hon. Members and to the country a Green Paper setting out what the Government wish to see changed in the budget and the CAP? They should not leave the whole thing to the initiative of the Commission in Brussels.

We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has to parade round the paddock on this matter, and he has done that fairly satisfactorily. He knows that he is wrong to say that the 30 May agreement was unsatisfactory. That comes extremely badly from someone who was in the previous Government, because they achieved nothing on this matter. Our agreement was a good one and the right hon. Gentleman is rightly envious of it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in developing a European Economic Community policy towards Japan.

The Foreign Affairs Council on 22 July took the view that Commission proposals for a common commercial policy required further study. The subject is on the agenda for the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 24 and 25 November.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support, certainly in the motor industry in this country, for the views reported today to be held by Mr. Haferkamp, that there is a need at the meeting next month for the EEC to arrive at a common trade policy towards Japan, for fear that otherwise there will be individual national initiatives which could lead to an outbreak of protectionism?

I see my hon. Friend's point. If there were a satisfactory Community agreement it would have greater strength than member States acting individually could have. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in order to be acceptable to the United Kingdom, a common Community position on trade with Japan would have to safeguard our interests at least as effectively as do existing industry arrangements.

Is not the truth of the matter that the Lord Privy Seal does not have a satisfactory agreement at either industry or EEC level and that if an agreement is to be negotiated he will need new machinery which does not exist within the Community? Is not the reality that the Japanese are flooding our car market and that by the time the Government get round to doing something about it we shall not have a lorry or a car market left?

The hon. Lady is indulging in her customary exaggeration. It is not happening; so far the Japanese have abided by their agreements. There is not a satisfactory Community agreement at the moment. That was the whole point of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller). He was suggesting that there should be an agreement.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently circulated to all members of the National Economic Development Council a remarkable paper on Japan by our former ambassador there, Sir Michael Wilford. Since that paper would help to concentrate wonderfully the minds of those seeking to establish an effective European response to the Japanese challenge, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the paper to be given an even wider circulation?

I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Is it not a fact that the problems of the motor car industry and import penetration are not related solely to Japan, but also to our alleged Community partners? Should not the real purpose behind the question be not just to single out Japan, but to have a proper policy that will protect this country against exports from other countries?

I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It has nothing to do with the question, which is concerned with Japan.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make proposals to amend the Treaty of Rome.

No, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now widespread disenchantment with our membership of the EEC, and that the basic problem is related to the iron corset of the Treaty of Rome—in particular, some of us think, more from a political than an economic point of view? Is it not now clear that such a treaty, drawn up so many years ago, must be ready for fundamental change?

I do not agree that there is great disenchantment. One of the interesting things that happened after the goings-on at Blackpool was that people who had not previously been all that keen on membership suddenly realised how disastrous withdrawal would be. There may well be improvements that could and should be made to the Treaty, but I do not think that that is the fundamental question at present. The fundamental matter is to get on with the restructuring to which the Community was committed by the agreement of 30 May last year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Labour Party at its conference to seek withdrawal from the EEC has caused great difficulty for the Conservatives in the European Parliament in forwarding British interests there? It is very difficult to convince our European partners of the essential levity of the Labour Party, which in opposition invariably preaches that it will withdraw and in government is forced to recognise the realities of the situation.

I agree with my hon. Friend, but in speaking to our partners in Europe I have found no great difficulty in convincing them about the levity of the Labour Party.

If the Government are opposed to import controls, why do they operate the common agricultural policy?

Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have protected our agriculture in one way or another for many years. That was done very successfully after the war by the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and to whom he continually looks back. The CAP is just one other way of protecting our agriculture.

My right hon. Friend makes rather terse denials to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but surely he cannot maintain that the terms of our membership are set in concrete for all time. Reciprocal advantages and obligations evolve with the passage of time, do they not?

I think that the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend are absolutely impeccable.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning meetings of the Council of the European Economic Community held since the end of July.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning meetings of the Council of the European Economic Community held since the end of July.

I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on 27 October.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he confirm that on 7 October the Council of Ministers agreed the pattern of supplementary measures that would be part of the British repayments? Will he also confirm that they will last for only three years, that only 70 per cent. of the expenditure will fall on the EEC, with 30 per cent. falling on Her Majesty's Government, and that these payments are primarily controlled by the Council of the EEC? When shall we have a list of the regional measures that the Government propose? How much additional United Kingdom expenditure will that involve?

I think that the hon. Gentleman will receive a list fairly soon after the measures have been submitted to the Commission. The hon. Gentleman was misleading when he talked about "only 70 per cent." Each project will be financed to the tune of only 70 per cent. by the Community, but the figures that I gave the House after the 30 May settlement still apply. There has been no question of reducing our budget refund by 30 per cent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the British Government have let the British textile industry bleed almost to death the Dutch Government in August and the French Government yesterday announced substantial packages of aid to their textile industries? Was any objection to these schemes taken in the Council of Ministers? If not, do the British Government intend to ensure that they secure similar schemes of assistance?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter did not come up in the Council of Ministers, and that detailed questions on the textile industry should go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

As our net contribution to the EEC so far this financial year has been about £3 million a day, can my right hon. Friend explain a little more why he and his colleagues agreed to our receiving only 80 per cent. of what we were promised a short time ago?

I have already tried to explain, I thought clearly, in a written answer to my hon. Friend. The point is that we agreed that not less than 80 per cent. should be paid by the end of the financial year. The rest will be paid after that. There is no question of our agreeing to 80 per cent; it is simply that not less than 80 per cent. will be paid by the end of the financial year.

Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House a little more about the initiatives that the Government pursued at the meetings in regard to looking after the interests of the British steel industry, both the public and private sector? How would the right hon. Gentleman describe the response to those initiatives?

There has been general unity of view between the British Government, the steel Commission and the steel unions. We have agreed that action under article 58 is desirable. The Germans have found this difficult, and there is to be another meeting of the Council tomorrow.

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a number of us on the Conservative Benches were opposed to entering the European Community, and that therefore it is right that today we should draw attention to such matters as the French cheating over the milk co-responsibility levy?

I do not know whether that is right. My hon. Friend is at liberty to ask what questions he likes, but, without further elaboration, which I do not wish to press my hon. Friend to give, I am not certain what he is asking about.

The Lord Privy Seal does not seem to have taken account of the point that is being made, that both the timing of the repayments and the amount of the budget refunds are of great importance. Presumably, on the timing, if we do not receive substantial repayments in this financial year that will make the cuts all the more severe than those so far announced.

It is because that is an agreement that was reached by the Council—a unanimous agreement—and I have no reason to believe that it will be broken. There is plenty of time for ample projects to be agreed and the moneys paid over before the end of the financial year. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of how the Community works, will know that a negative qualified majority is not very difficult to achieve.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss future planning of the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the future development of the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the enlargement of the Community.

The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council will be on 24 and 25 November, which my right hon. and noble Friend will attend. I hope to meet Community colleagues on that occasion. I expect also to attend the meeting on 16 December. The agendas for these meetings have not yet been agreed.

When the Minister goes to the meetings, can he cast off his blinkered attitude towards the Community and accept that there are some faults? Will he accept that many thousands of jobs are being lost in many manufacturing industries, at least in part because of cheap imports, paticularly in the textile industry? What sort of safeguards will the textile industry have against the accession of Portugal, which is currently the second largest low-cost importer into this country? Jobs are at stake. There are faults in the Community, but the right hon. Gentleman appears to go on completely oblivious of everything.

That is quite untrue. Of course there are faults in the Community. No serious person has ever denied that. The hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, that in the agreement bringing Greece into the Community there is a general safeguards clause. As I have told the House before, we shall ensure that a similar safeguards clause applies to Portugal.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the intention of the Government to press for a substantial increase in the regional and social funds at these meetings?

That is in general our ambition. Obviously, in any restructuring we must take account of the fact that the proportion of the budget fund that goes to agriculture is too much, particularly on the disposal of agricultural surpluses. My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a particular problem this year because of the prospect of the Community running out of own resources. There is, therefore, a limit to how much we can press in the direction he wishes.

Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Goverment have suggested that the regional fund and the social fund should be lower and that they would agree with price rises in the common agricultural fund? Does that not make nonsense of all the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said?

The hon. Lady is misinformed. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury pressed for an increase in the social and regional funds but when that was not possible, he rightly did not wish to hold up the adoption by the Council of the budget.