asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the state of relations between the United Kingdom and other member States of the European Economic Community.

Yes, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the admittedly small chance of there being a future Labour Government who would withdraw from Europe puts a cloud over relations between ourselves and our European colleagues? Has my right hon. Friend read a recent article in the New Statesman by Ann Clwyd, the Labour European Member, which pointed out clearly that it is not enough for Labour Party spokesmen to talk about their internationalism, but that they must prove it in practice?

Yes, Sir. The possibility of a future Labour Government seeking to withdraw Britain from the Community causes anxiety to our colleagues. However, I am happy to be able to reassure my hon. Friend that the likelihood of that is remote.

Is the Minister aware that any withdrawal from the Community will have a devastating effect on employment? Does he agree that the likelihood of achieving a similar favourable trading arrangement is an illusion of the Labour Party?

Rubbish.

Can the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that the Government will reconsider the present doctrine of additionality under which funds voted for the development of our inner cities and Northern Ireland are simply absorbed by the Treasury and do not go to the benefit of the cities for which they are voted?

The second part of the right hon. Lady's question is more a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer than for me. Surprisingly, I agree with her on the first part of her question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of us have already heard the stories about the devasting effects on employment, expecially when we were entering the Common Market? Is he aware that we were then told clearly by the advocates of entry to the Common Market that unless we joined millions of people would become unemployed? We entered the Common Market and millions are now unemployed.

Does the Minister agree that the negotiations on the budget proposals are causing a great deal of sourness? Is it not understandable that there will be sourness for as long as such problems face us, for as long as the CAP is not changed and for as long as the Rome Treaty cuts across the interests of the British people? Is it not better to accept the position of the Labour Party—

Which one?

and get out of the Common Market than to continue the sourness?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that we can leave the Common Market without damage, he should consult his colleagues in the TUC.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list the reforms so far achieved in the Common Market since May 1979; and if he will make a statement.

The agreement reached on 30 May 1980, which provided for refunds of Britain's contributions to the Community budget for 1980,1981 and if necessary 1982, was a major achievement for the Government. It also included a commitment to a reexamination of Community policies with a view to a more durable solution. Discussions on this subject in the Community are continuing and we hope that they will soon be brought to a successful conclusion.

The Community has adopted a wide variety of measures in different fields during the period in question. Details can be found in the White Papers on developments in the European Community, which the Government publish at regular intervals.

In addition, a separate memorandum was deposited in the Library of the House on 23 December, outlining the many measures agreed by the Community during the recently concluded British Presidency of the Council of Ministers.

Is it not true that, the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) apart, the Government adopt a lickspittle subservience to the EEC? Is it not true that there have been no reforms, that the CAP remains inviolate, and that by virtue of its structure it cannot be changed without a unanimous vote, which is virtually impossible? In 1980, did not Britain have a deficit in manufactures and semi-manufactures of £2½ billion? We are helping to prop up the EEC. Where is the reform in that?

As always, there are none so blind as those who will not see. I direct the hon. Gentleman's attention to my answer referring to the documents that we have deposited in the Library. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads them, because then he will see the forward movements, strides and reforms that have taken place in the last few years of our membership of the Community.

With every deference to my right hon. Friend, does he agree that one of the reforms that has not been forthcoming is the elimination of the national trading practices of countries such as Italy, France and Belgium, which have worked against the best interests of Britain's manufacturing industries? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, sadly—and against my best wishes and instincts—Britain has been a soft option and a soft touch since we joined the EEC? When will we stand up for our best national interests?

I always mistrust questions that start with my hon. Friend's opening words. He said that Britain was a soft option in the Community. Our partners do not regard us in that light. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to the many improvements to the way in which the Community works, brought about at our initiative, and the further improvements that we are seeking. Of course, I do not pretend that all the problems have been ironed out. They have not, but that improvements have been made is undeniable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only way in which Britain can get a decent deal—if that is possible—is by ending the common agricultural policy? If that policy were ended, would not France break up the Community?

We are discussing, not ending the CAP, but the changing it. That is one of the things that we are seeking. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Heads of Government agreed in May 1980 that it should be altered. We are now engaged in that process and I hope that it will be successful.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that substantial reforms are required in the interests of all Community members, and that Britain's interests can best be enhanced by pointing out that we are one of the biggest customers for manufactures and agricultural products within the EEC?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Changes are needed in the way in which the Community works. We have been seeking to achieve them. We shall continue to do that and I believe that we shall be successful.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any further progress has been made towards reforming the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has had any recent discussions with European Economic Community Ministers concerning future British contributions to the Community budget.

Although considerable progress has been made towards agreement on a set of guidelines covering the issues raised by the mandate of 30 May 1980, it has not yet been possible to reach complete agreement, in particular on the four key issues identified by the European Council last November. At the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 February, Ministers agreed to discuss the 30 May mandate at their meeting on 23 March. Before then the President of the Council and the President of the Commission will undertake a series of bilateral contacts with the member States.

How long does the Lord Privy Seal think we can decently continue the charade of pretending that there is a way of reforming the CAP? The right hon. Gentleman said that the mandate was given to the Commission on 30 May, almost a year ago. He assured the House that, based on that, the problems would be solved at the meetings on 23 to 26 November, under the British Presidency. The British Presidency ended in fiasco and Gaston Thorn is telling us that the whole thing is likely to break up.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that we are rowing over the demand for £1,400 million of British money? Might it not be better to have a looser arrangement, whereby Britain is outside the CAP, does not contribute to the budget and has much friendlier relations with those countries?

No, Sir, it would not. I cannot say precisely how long it will take to solve the problem, but the Government remain determined to solve it in accordance with the agreement reached between the Heads of all the member States of the Community.

Is it not time that even this Government came to the conclusion that the EEC is beyond reform in respect of British interests? In particular, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that Britain has made massive payments over the years and is still making them? Will the right hon. Gentleman also bear in mind the heavy unemployment in Britain and compare it with the situation in countries such as Austria, Sweden and Norway, with which we have previously been on a par?

The EEC is no more beyond reform than any other body—even the Labour Party.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there has been some reform of the CAP, not least because in 1979 it took up about 80 per cent. of the budget while it now takes up less than 70 per cent. of the budget?

Yes, Sir. We are making slower progress than any of us want, but as long as there is progress it is our business to pursue the ends that we all desire.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that over the years there has been attempt after attempt to reform the CAP and to achieve other reforms? However, there has been no reform. On this occasion, can we not ask the right hon. Gentleman for a clear declaration in the House that if we do not achieve the reforms—as seems likely—the Government will this time take a clear stand and bring the issue back to the House and to the British people for a clear decision.

No, Sir. Under the auspices of the Labour Government, a clear decision was reached in 1975. This Government are not prepared to give up as easily as the hon. Gentleman apparently is.

Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on having done more to assist our cause in the Common Market than any other British Prime Minister? Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the Opposition probably waffle because it is the only subject upon which they are united?

The hon. Gentleman is not very well informed.

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question, but not with the second part. I do not detect any more unity among the Opposition on this subject than on any other subject that is raised in the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, at the next meeting of the Council of Ministers, he will raise the matter of the relations between the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

No, Sir. Relations between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament were last discussed by the Council on 22 February and these discussions are being continued in the appropriate working group. In addition, discussions between the Council and the Parliament will be starting in the near future about the classification of expenditure in the Community budget and other aspects of the budgetary procedure.

Are the Govermnent altogether wise to slap down the European Parliament, where there is rather more support for a fair budgetary settlement than in the Council of Ministers? Does not the European Parliament serve a useful purpose in educating Opposition Members? During the recent catastrophic visit made by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) did they not discover that there is no support among the Continental Socialist parties for the alternative solution that they are putting forward?

Yes, Sir. The European Parliament serves an extremely useful purpose, but I cannot agree that the Council of Ministers is slapping it down. We are entering into discussions with it on a variety of matters of common interest. During our Presidency, before Christmas, we took particular care to bring the European Parliament into our discussions. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first head of Government to attend a meeting of the Parliament, which she did on 16 December to give an account of the immediately preceding European Council proceedings.

At the next Council of Ministers, will the right hon. Gentleman put on the agenda—for discussion with the European Parliament—a subject that many find obscene, particularly at a time of high unemployment? I refer to the large golden handshakes that are given to the Commission's top members. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Michael Kennedy, the retiring Irish Commissioner, is to receive £40,000? In addition, how much did Roy Jenkins receive when he retired, and how much does he still receive from the Commission?

I shall not do that and nor am I prepared to assist the hon. Gentleman in his campaign against a man who used to be his right hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Economic Community foreign policy.

The Ten continue to work closely together. Foreign Ministers met on 23 February in Brussels and a wide range of foreign policy issues were discussed. The practical measures to improve political co-operation agreed by Foreign Ministers on 23 October—known as the London report—are being implemented.

In what spheres will foreign affairs initiatives be taken by the Community in the next few months? Does my right hon. Friend expect any further developments that will affect the Middle East?

I expect political discussion and co-operation between members of the Community to continue and to improve as time goes by, in accordance with the arrangements made at the meeting in London to which I referred. I cannot now forecast the precise direction in which those initiatives will be mounted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten the House about the EEC's policy towards events in the Horn of Africa? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Ethiopian Army, with the aid of Soviet Migs and tanks, has evicted ethnic Somalis from the Ogaden, their ancient homeland? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, with the aid of EEC money, Ethiopian peasants are being settled on that land? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that that is a form of genocide?

I am aware of the problems and difficulties in that part of the world and I know that such matters engage the attention of the Ministers of the Ten. No doubt they will be discussed.

Do not the Lord Privy Seal's pious platitudes about political co-operation sound slightly hollow given that a Community initiative on El Salvador was possible? Why did the Lord Privy Seal break ranks with the rest of the EEC over El Salvador, when that was a perfect example of an opportunity for a Community initiative?

At the Opposition's suggestion, the House spent three hours discussing El Salvador yesterday. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not profit from that discussion.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would be better able to co-operate in foreign policy with our friends on the other side of the English Channel were it not for the fact that in the last two months of last year we had a balance of trade deficit in manufactures of about £830 million—almost as much as one year's deficit with Japan—and for the massive haemorrhage of jobs that our present relationship with the Community has caused?

My hon. Friend's description of the position is not accurate, and that position has had no effect on the political discussions between the Ministers of the Ten.