asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the situation in Eritrea.

Her Majesty's Government are concerned at reports of renewed fighting in Eritrea. The Ethiopian Government are aware of our belief that regional disputes should be settled not by violence but by conciliation and negotiation.

Does the Minister have any evidence that nerve gas has been used? Can he confirm that Russia supplied nerve gas in 1980? Can he say anything about the substantial number of refugees in Eritrea on the Sudanese border?

We noted that in a recent BBC external services broadcast the Ethiopian ambassador in London denied the use of any nerve gas, but if any evidence of its use becomes available we shall regard the matter very seriously.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we give assistance to refugees in Somalia and in the Sudan.

I note what my hon. Friend said about conciliation and negotiation being the basis of the settlement, but is self-determination for the people of Eritrea a concept that Her Majesty's Government will support?

Since 1962 Eritrea has been regarded by the international community as an integral part of Ethopia. We have not changed our position on that aspect.

The House will be comforted by the Government's concern about the increasing rumours on the use of nerve gas. May we be assured that the Government are taking steps urgently to consider this matter? The anxiety, which exists in much wider areas than the British community, needs to be investigated in great depth. Will the Government take steps to bring the matter to the attention of those who may be responsible?

Yes. We have told the British ambassador in Ethiopia of the public anxiety about this issue and asked all those who have expressed concern to give their evidence, which we shall consider seriously.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, during the forthcoming visit to Israel, the Secretary of State will make it a priority to seek to bring about a substantial and continuing improvement in relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government and people of the State of Israel; and if he will make a statement.

We certainly aim to maintain excellent relations with Israel. My right hon. and noble Friend hopes that his visit to Israel will help.

As relations are currently poor and the fault is not all on one side, will my right hon. Friend confirm that when the Secretary of State goes to Israel it will be not only to put over Western perceptions and policies, but to listen to the views of the people and Government of Israel?

Yes, Sir. There are genuine differences of view between the British and Israeli Governments. However, there have been many unnecessary misunderstandings, which we are beginning to clear away. I certainly accept that that means consulting both sides.

When the Secretary of State visits Israel, will he make it clear to the Israeli Government that they can do a great deal to improve relations with Britain by ending what appears to be their on-going policy of illegal annexation, colonisation and, indeed, armed attacks against other countries?

We have made clear at the United Nations and elsewhere our rejection of the Israeli action over East Jerusalem and, more recently the Golan Heights. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding about that.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the best single approach is for the Foreign Secretary to give his complete encouragement and support for the furtherance of the autonomy talks and negotiations that are a continuation of the Camp David settlement, which has the agreement of both Egypt and the United States?

I wish those talks well, but my hon. and learned Friend will have noticed the point repeatedly made by the Egyptian President in public that there is a stage beyond which one cannot discuss the future of Palestinian lands without the Palestinians.

There could be an exaggeration on the part of some people in respect of Israel's desire for security, but does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the security of the Israeli people is paramount in their minds, regardless of the fact that we may feel that they are pursuing it in a way with which we do not agree? Will his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary make clear to the Israeli leaders his views and those of Her Majesty's Government and thereby allay Israel's fears about security in future?

Security is paramount in the minds of the Israelis, just as Palestinian self-determination is paramount in the minds of the Arabs. We must find a way to reconcile those two objectives.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the Secretary of State, during his forthcoming visit to Syria, will urge the Syrian Government to enter into direct peace negotiations with Israel.

In the search for a peace settlement in the Middle East we take every opportunity of urging all parties in the region to indicate their willingness to enter into negotiations with each other. My right hon. and noble Friend's forthcoming visit to Syria will provide a further opportunity to emphasise the need for such negotiations.

When the Foreign Secretary visits Syria, will he attempt to clarify whether President Assad said that he would never recognise Israel? If so, will he do everything that he can to make sure that that is changed?

The hon. Gentleman will know that Syria accepted resolution 338 of the Security Council, which embodied a reaffirmed resolution 242. Therefore, the position of the Syrian Government in that respect is clear.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm to the Syrian Government that the so-called annexation of parts of Southern Syria and the Golan Heights is regarded as totally unacceptable?

We have made that clear. As far as we are concerned, internal actions and measures taken by the Israeli Government have no international effect and are void.

Has the Minister considered the repeated assertion that Israel requires secure borders? Does he not feel that that should also apply to other countries in the region? Are they not also entitled to secure borders?

Yes, Sir.

During the visit, will my right hon. and noble Friend draw the attention of the Syrian Government to the fact that they have not had an ambassador here for far too long and that it is necessary to have an ambassador at the Court of St. James if Syria's case is to be expressed consistently and forcefully in the media?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. There may be good news on that front before long.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the most recent discussions between his Department and the Polish Government on the issue of human rights.

Her Majesty's Government have made it very clear to the Polish authorities that we deplore the massive violation of human and civil rights in Poland. We have called on the Polish Government to lift martial law, release those detained without trial and resume a dialogue with the Church and Solidarity as soon as possible.

I welcome that reply. Has the Minister had talks with and received the views of the International Committee of the Red Cross on the number of people in internment? Will he indicate the Government's anxiety over the fate of Mr. Lech Walesa? His continued incarceration should be deplored by all who want to see human rights extolled in this country and elsewhere.

We are in close touch with the International Committee of the Red Cross because of the handling of the humanitarian food aid that we and other countries are sending to Poland. Of course we deplore the detention of Lech Walesa without trial, just as we deplore the detention of anyone else. He is still detained, but he was recently visited by a Polish priest and appeared to be in good health.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noticed reports in today's papers of a speech by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) expressing criticism of sanctions against Poland? Does he agree with the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that the West can influence the situation in Poland only by pursuing a policy of detente in the long term?

I have seen newspaper reports of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) apparently said in the United States yesterday, but I am too old a hand to rely entirely on newspaper reports.

In his earlier reply my right hon. Friend mentioned the importance of lifting martial law. Does he agree that we must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that the situation will be ameliorated by the lifting of martial law, which would not necessarily lead to the release of political prisoners or the return of human rights? There is no martial law in the Soviet Union and there are certainly no human rights there.

I agree with my hon. Friend, who may have noticed the communiqué, issued following discussions in Russia yesterday between President Brezhnev and General Jaruzelski, to the effect that any attempts to change the socio-political system further will be cut short in a most resolute manner. That applies not just to martial law. It is clear from that communiqué that there is no change of heart so far on the part of the Polish authorities.

The Labour Party sympathies entirely with the Polish working people against the junta. When will the Prime Minister speak out clearly and sharply over the evil repression in South Africa and in El Salvador—

Order. There are questions about El Salvador on the Order Paper.

With respect, Mr. Speaker—

Order. This question is about Poland.

Yes, but there is a comparison.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I will take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after Question Time. [Interruption.] Order. I am not entering into an argument with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is satisfied with the steps the fifteen North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nations have taken to formulate an agreed policy of response to any further unfavourable developments in Poland.

The response of Her Majesty's Government and our North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to the situation in Poland was set out in the ministerial declaration of 11 January. That declaration also outlined measures which might be taken if the situation in Poland showed no improvement. A number of such measures have now been taken. Should the situation in Poland deteriorate further—we all hope it will not—NATO will certainly respond as indicated.

In view of the lack of allied co-operation over Afghanistan and Soviet sanctions—

Order.

Order. I am grateful for that assistance. The question is confined to Poland.

In view of the lack of allied co-operation in the former cases, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, should the Soviet Union take over Poland, allied co-operation has already been agreed and will be immediate?

We have made it clear in NATO that any move by the Soviet Union to interfere directly in the affairs of Poland will be met immediately by the measures and rebuffs that we have described in the statement to which I referred.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, whatever we may feel about martial law in Poland, that is no reason for breaking off or discouraging East-West peace talks? What good will it do the Polish, British or any other people if we continue the arms race, which can only have the same result as all past arms races?

The hon. Gentleman will surely have noticed that the discussions in general between the United States and the Soviet Union about the reduction of future theatre nuclear weapons are still going on. Furthermore, the review conference in Madrid relating to the Helsinki Final Act is also continuing.

If the situation in Poland deteriorates, will one of the options being considered by the Government and our NATO Allies be that the sporting relationships between the West and the Communist bloc should be put on the same basis as those with South Africa?

There are no sporting relationships between ourselves and the Soviet Union at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Of course there are."] There are no events scheduled between ourselves and the Soviet Union at the moment.

Where is Aston Villa now?

I refer the House to the statement issued on 11 January to which I have referred.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he considers that the joint European Economic Community initiative with regard to Poland is making any progress.

The position of the Ten remains as set out in the declaration of Foreign Ministers on 4 January, a copy of which was placed in the Library. The Community has discontinued food sales at special prices to Poland, and funds for that purpose have been diverted to humanitarian aid. European Community Foreign Ministers agreed on 23 February to allocate a further £4·5 million for this aid. There have not so far been the changes in Polish policies that we would wish to see.

Is it not a matter of deep regret that, despite the horror felt in the whole of the Western world about martial law being imposed in Poland, none of the measures so far taken by the EEC has had any effect whatever? Is it not clear that the military regime in Poland, supported by Russia, will in the end be influenced only by a totoal embargo on grain exports to the Eastern bloc?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". On the second part, I believe that the restrictions on credit upon which the Community has embarked in relation to Poland are having an effect.

Will the Lord Privy Seal make it clear that many of us who have been deeply concerned about human rights in other parts of the world are equally anxious about the situation in Poland? Is he aware that we are most concerned that he should make it clear everywhere that the Opposition are anxious that immediate steps are taken to release political prisoners and to provide proper freedom for the Polish people?

I am delighted to have the hon. Gentleman's support.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that some of us believe that the proposed sanctions are entirely cosmetic? Does he agree that sanctions, such as 2 per cent. of imports worth £140 million relating to luxury goods, are not the way to proceed? Would it not be better for the Ten to enter into discussions with the Polish Government about the release of prisoners and the removal of martial law than to have a pretence of action which adds up to nothing?

As I said earlier, we are in touch with representatives of the Polish Government. We have made precisely the points that the hon. Gentleman has made, but so far to no effect whatever.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will publish the text of the reply received by the Foreign Office from the Salvadorean Government to their inquiries in 1981 about Miss Ana Margarita Gasteazoro's imprisonment.

It is not our policy to publish texts, but I can say to my hon. Friend that the El Salvador Government have told us that this is an internal matter and they cannot accept requests for information from the British Government.

I remind my hon. Friend that Miss Ana Margarita Gasteazoro was helpful to the parliamentary human rights group's visit in 1978. Does he agree that the detention for 10 months of an active democratic politician is not the best sign that the elections in El Salvador will solve that country's problems?

As I have already implied, we have made known the concern of hon. Members about this lady. Clearly, if people are detained in any part of the world they should be charged or released as soon as possible thereafter.

In those circumstances, how can fair elections possibly take place in El Salvador? Will the Minister reconsider the decision that he defended yesterday? If this lady, who is a member of the Social Democratic Party of El Salvador, is kept in gaol for a year without trial, what possibility is there for people on the Left to campaign adequately in elections?

I strongly favour the Government's policy to send two observers to the elections. That is a neutral act. They will see for themselves what the electoral process is like, form an independent opinion and publish their report.

Does my hon. Friend share my dismay and agree with me that, at a time when the Roman Catholic Church, the peasants' trade union and many other organisations in El Salvador are pleading with the world to support the elections, and when the neighbouring democratic States of Costa Rica and Honduras also support the elections, it is depressing in the extreme that Socialist International, and therefore the Labour Party, allied with the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, should be hostile to democratic elections? [HON. MEMBERS: "So is the EEC."] Does he further agree that human rights—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is about to complete his sentence.

Does he further agree that the human rights of the lady in question and others in El Salvador will be protected if a constitutional Government can be constructed on the basis of democratic elections, which are rejected by all three Opposition parties in the House?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is far more constructive to encourage the democratic process, and we believe that it is right to do so. We all note that the Roman Catholic bishops in El Salvador and the Pope himself at the weekend expressed the belief that elections should be held.

Oh, no, he did not.

I doubt whether the Minister listened very carefully to the disgraceful words of his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). Does he agree that the democratic Government of Canada, together with all the democratic Governments of Western Europe except Britain, have taken exactly the same view as Her Majesty's Opposition—namely, that there cannot be democratic elections in El Salvador while the whole country is controlled by a military junta which is committing the most appalling atrocities against the people?

This is getting rather repetitive. Yesterday we told the right hon. Gentleman that the Foreign Minister of Canada said that he believes that it is right to hold elections. His point about observers was that he would have preferred them to be part of an international team. The question is what is right for the British Government to do. We believe that the most constructive course is to send two representatives to El Salvador to observe the electoral process rather than sit here as armchair critics.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about progress at the Madrid conference.

The review meeting reconvened at Madrid on 9 February. Since then many Western delegations have spoken about the situation in Poland and have forcefully drawn attention to violations of the Helsinki Final Act by the Polish and Soviet authorities. My right hon. and noble Friend addressed the meeting in this sense on 12 February. There has been virtually no discussion since Christmas of other subjects.

In my right hon. Friend's view, has the Madrid conference produced any positive results in easing tension between East and West or in creating new confidence-building measures?

The tragedy is that, before martial law was imposed in Poland, we had made some progress towards agreement on a European disarmament conference and confidence-building measures, but it is difficult now in Madrid to discuss new agreements of that kind without first discussing how existing agreements have been flouted by Poland and the Soviet Union.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what information is available to Her Majesty's Government about the incidence of human rights violations in El Salvador in recent weeks.

I have seen reports that civilians were killed during security force operations in the province of Morazan in December 1981 and in the suburbs of San Salvador earlier this year. There have also been reports of the killing of civilians by guerrillas. We have no independent means of verifying any of these reports.

Is the Minister aware that many people in this country are deeply concerned about Government action on human rights? Is he also aware that the Government's record is certainly not Persil-white? When will he and the Government come out into the open from behind Reagan's cloak and do something about the problem?

It seems strange that the hon. Gentleman should pose this question in such a hysterical way when if he had been present during the debate last night he could have made a contribution. [Interruption.] I do not recall his presence in the House.

During that debate—and clearly the hon. Gentleman did not listen—the Government condemned violence, from whatever source. We supported a United Nations resolution that a special rapporteur should be appointed to examine the violation of human rights in El Salvador. The hon. Gentleman does the House no good by making such fatuous allegations.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

I shall allow this point of order, because there was a personal reference to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes).

I ask for your protection in this matter, Mr. Speaker. The public schoolboys on the Conservative Benches think that this is a joke. I was in the Chamber during the debate last night. What is more, I did a duty as Whip on the Opposition Front Bench. Mr. Speaker, I need your protection from that scurrilous attack. The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself.

Order. If it will help to restore the peace—

Withdraw.

Order. I saw the hon. Gentleman sitting there.

Withdraw.

Order. Perhaps the Minister will withdraw his remark. I saw the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) last night.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What I was saying was that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman speak last night. If he was unable to do so for other reasons, I withdraw my allegation.

Does my hon. Friend share my view that there is nothing that the House likes more than discussing matters over which it has little or no control? Does he agree that, much as we may dislike what is happening in El Salvador, there is very little that we can do about it?

There is widespread anxiety about the situation in El Salvador. I agree that certain hon. Members seem to think that they have every right to interfere in the internal affairs of El Salvador. It is important to have a balanced judgment on this occasion.

What about Poland?

Last night the Lord Privy Seal made great play of the fact that the Government have made many appeals to the El Salvador Government, and others, to bring offenders responsible for breaching human rights and causing deaths to trial. What effect have the Government's pleas had on the El Salvador Government, who, with their sponsored death squads, were responsible for thousands of deaths in 1981 alone?

Last night we had a full debate in which the whole House seemed to agree that there were two sources of violence—the Right wing, and some military elements, and the Left-wing guerrillas. It is sensible for the House to deplore violence from any source.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Government of Argentina on the future of the Falkland Islands.

I met the Argentine Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for discussions on the Falkland Islands question on 26 and 27 February in New York. While we both agreed on the need to resolve the dispute, and discussed future procedures, I made it clear that we had no doubts about British sovereignty, and that no solution could be agreed that was not acceptable to the islanders and to the House. The text of the communiqué was published in the Official Report of 2 March and has been placed in the Library.

We have all read the bland communiqué and we have then read the reports from Argentina in today's press. Can the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that under no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government countenance the transfer of sovereignty to a country that denies human rights, imprisons trade unionists, denies free elections and in every way goes against all the traditions held dear by the people of the Falkland Islands?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, without any shadow of a doubt, there will be no contemplation of any transfer of sovereignty without consulting the wishes of the islanders, or without the consent of the House. The statement reported to have been issued by the Argentine Government yesterday is not helpful to the process that we all wish to see that will resolve this dispute.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the line that he took in talks with the Argentine Government. Has his attention been drawn to the somewhat aggressive statement in the Argentine press yesterday? Will he assure us that all necessary steps are in hand to ensure the protection of the islands against unexpected attack?

We have no doubts about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and no doubt about our duties to the islanders. The statement to which my right hon. Friend referred causes me and my right hon. and noble Friend deep concern, especially as the discussions last week were held in a friendly and cordial atmosphere. Yet, they have been followed by a statement that is most unhelpful. It causes deep anxiety and is not helpful to the process of finding a solution to the problem.

While the Minister's words are welcome, they would be more persuasive if the Government were willing to embark on an economic aid programme for the Falkland Islands. Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about that?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development is here and is answerable for aid problems. I think that he would want me to stress that the per capita assistance for the Falkland Islands is substantial and that the Government propose to continue in that way.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent the policies of Her Majesty's Government on overseas students have affected relations with other countries.

It is the case that there has been a reduction in the number of overseas students coming here and that a number of Governments have expressed their concern about that.

If the charging of these fees for overseas students has affected foreign relations, trade and educational arrangments here, is it not apparent that the time has now come for a co-ordinated policy to be produced by all the Government Departments concerned, with the Foreign Office firmly in the lead?

This is an issue that concerns not just one Department but a great number of Departments. It is important for the future of our relations with so many countries that we should have as many students here as possible. As the House knows, it was necessary to take a decision to reduce public expenditure, and we had to bear in mind the economic constraints within which we were operating. I agree with my hon. Friend that the question is important, but we should await the report of the Overseas Students Trust, which is due to be published shortly. The Government shall be considering its findings carefully.

Is the Minister aware that the island of Cyprus does not have a university because when it was given independence the Government of the day—a Conservative Government—said that it would always be able to send its students to universities in this country? Now all classes and shades of opinion in Cyprus are viewing with alarm and dismay the fact that they will be unable to send other than a small group of wealthy students, and that the great bulk of students will go to America or Bulgaria? At the very minimum, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that special arrangements are made for Cyprus as a member of the Commonwealth, and in view of the promises made?

The matter does not concern only Cyprus. When we consider the report, it is important to take into account the nature of our relationship with many of our Commonwealth friends. It is also important to stress—and my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal would wish me to do so—that we are spending substantial public funds on the overseas development assistance programme to support many students. About £42 million is to be spent in 1982–83 on maintaining about 14,000 students and trainees.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the good will and training that overseas students gather in Britain can be of great advantage to us in the long term? For example, is my hon. Friend aware that as students educated here become senior executives in their own countries they will orient themselves towards Britain? The Government should consider that seriously.

I agree about the importance of providing training facilities. That is why we attach importance to studying carefully the Overseas Students Trust report due to be published shortly. We shall look at it as constructively as possible, bearing in mind economic restraints.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of preparations for the United Nations special session on disarmament beginning on 7 June 1982.

The preparatory committee for the special session, of which we are a member, has drawn up the agenda for it. The preparatory committee's final meeting will be held in April and May, when it will conclude its procedural business and possibly begin discussion of substantive issues.

I recognise that there is an international agreement of sorts to ban the use of chemical weapons, but does my right hon. Friend agree that that ban would be much more effective if there were also an agreement to ban the manufacturing and the stockpiling of such offensive weapons? Will Her Majesty's Government use their good influence to promote that as an objective at the forthcoming special session?

My hon. Friend is right. There is a great deal of worry about chemical weapons. That is why Her Majesty's Government put forward the criterion for verification in the Committee on Disarmament on 18 February. Everyone who looks at the matter realises that satisfactory verification measures are the key to stopping the manufacture and stockpiling of chemical weapons. We have taken an initiative that we hope will be useful.

Is the Minister aware of the deep concern among—indeed the affront to—British people that a meeting of NATO Ministers has been called to coincide with the start of the special session on disarmament? Given the great public interest that exists throughout the world in the possibilities of success of the special session of disarmament, will Her Majesty's Government use all the influence in their power to get the NATO Heads of State meeting rescheduled to a more appropriate time?

That is a weak point. The NATO summit will last for two days, and the special session for more than a month. I should be surprised if the NATO summit did not address itself to arms control in the same way as NATO Heads of State have done in the past.

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.