asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to visit Washington, DC.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Washington in the near future.

Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to reinstate the chief information officer in the embassy in America? The grounds that he was sacked upon, that he had not peddled Labour Party propaganda, are totally unacceptable to all right-thinking people. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we would rather have Mr. O'Keefe than Dr. Goebbels?

The hon. Gentleman is singularly ill informed on this matter. The official to whom he refers was in no way sacked. As often happens with overseas appointments, Mr. O'Keefe was asked to move before the time that he anticipated being moved. That frequently happens in the course of diplomatic service.

When my right hon. Friend visits Washington, will he take steps to confirm with President Carter that the American Administration has no objection to the sale of defensive weapons by the United Kingdom to China? Will he tell the President then and this House now which weapons Her Majesty's Government are prepared to sell to China?

I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is neither the time nor the place to go into the detail that he raises. The issue of policy in general terms is one that we keep constantly under review.

The Minister has not met the main point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). Proposals to make economies in the British information services are one thing and the widely reported proposals to impose political censorship on press bulletins are another. Will the hon. Gentleman give a categorical denial that that is intended?

I am afraid that on this issue the hon. Gentleman is, uncharacteristically, as ill-informed as his hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley).

It is in the newspapers.

With great respect, it is not always wise to believe everything that we read in the press. The officer concerned was in no way sacked. Secondly, there is no question of censorship. In the course of an inspection by Foreign Office inspectors as long ago as last year, it was recommended by them that something should be done on this front.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

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

My right hon. Friend regrets very much that he had to miss Questions today, but he has flown to New York for an urgent meeting on Namibia.

On the issue of the British information services in New York, and Mr. O'Keefe, is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people equally well informed as himself take a different view of Mr. O'Keefe's dismissal? When overseas quango Jay finishes the round-Britain yacht race in his yacht Norvantes "[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap".] Cheap it is not. When he finishes the race, will the Minister tell him that there is widespread concern about the way in which Mr. O'Keefe's dismissal has been handled? Will he tell our ambassador in Washington that his behaviour is an abuse of his power, whomsoever his father-in-law may be?

I can only repeat that the hon. Gentleman would do well to get his facts right. There is no question of a dismissal. Frequently those who serve in the Diplomatic Service move from one appointment to another earlier than anticipated. Secondly, we must all recognise that from time to time, in the context, for example, of the CPRS review of the future of our Foreign Service, it naturally becomes necessary to make readjustments in the deployment of our resources. That is all that is happening.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there has been any communication with the United States Administration about the fraudulent character of the elections in Bolivia? Will he take this opportunity to add his voice to that of the United States Administration by denouncing these elections, expressing concern at the seizure of power by one of the candidates in the election, and calling for new and fair elections, in which at least no more people vote than are on the electoral register?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are deeply committed to the cause of democracy. In Bolivia, as anywhere else, we want to see democracy operating as effectively and fully as it can, not only legally but in spirit. We deeply regret infringements of the democratic process anywhere in the world.

The Minister of State has excused his right hon. Friend for his inability to be here today. We fully understand that. Since the severe problem of Namibia is involved, will the Minister make it abundantly clear that the report that the Government deliberately misled the South African Government over the subject of Walvis Bay is untrue?

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the way in which he accepts my right hon. Friend's absence. I assure him that any reports of this kind are totally unfounded.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on foreign involvement in Zaire.

The Government welcome the steps taken by African leaders to improve relations between Zaire and Angola and believe that this is an important step towards resolving the problems which have led to foreign intervention in Zaire.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are widespread press reports of Cuban and Soviet involvement in the Zaire uprising? Will he take this opportunity to confirm or correct those reports?

As I have said before, we have no direct or clear evidence about any Cuban involvement in the invasion of Shaba. Cuba could have been involved in the organisation of it in Angola. But that is water under the bridge now. The most constructive and valuable contribution was the meeting between President Neto and President Mobuto in Khartoum recently.

Is it true that because of defence cuts the British Government would be unable to organise a parachute drop of the kind made by the French and Belgian Governments in Zaire if it were necessary to save British subjects?

The Prime Minister has answered that question on many occasions since the Shaba incident.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the logical consequence of the Leader of the Opposition's rather emotional and hysterical demand that we should stand up to Russian and Cuban intervention in Africa is the potential involvement of Britain in a Vietnam type of situation in Africa and, certainly, the involvement of British troops and possibly conscription?

There are considerable differences between the two sides about the way to handle the African situation. We believe in the line that we have been taking. That line is supported throughout Africa. We believe that the countries concerned should resolve their own problems.

Does the Minister agree that it is in the vital interest of Zaire and the western world that copper production in Shaba Province should be brought to full capacity as soon as possible? What discussions are taking place with the Zaire Government to try to encourage European technicians to return to Shaba as soon as possible?

The French and Belgian Governments have been involved in this issue more than we have. Our role in the copper developments in Shaba was small and we sent few people there. We are in close consultation with our partners on issues of this kind.

There is no doubt on the Opposition side of the House that it is desirable for African problems to be solved within Africa. Is not that all the more reason for us to take the most vehement action to get the Cubans out?

How?

It is right to challenge new forms of imperialism of the Soviet and Cuban type in Africa. But the right hon. Member's recommendation about a western-sponsored European paramilitary organisation is completely antipathetic and is deeply resented by most of the people in Africa.

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

My right hon. Friend has already indicated to the House that he intends to make a statement as soon as he has received and studied Mr. Thomas Bingham's report on the supply of petroleum products to Rhodesia.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the breaking of oil sanctions in relation to Rhodesia both by the companies involved and by South Africa is another way of fuelling Ian Smith's war machine? Does he agree that if Opposition Members are concerned about foreign involvement in Southern Africa and Rhodesia, they should be equally concerned at the way in which the breaking of oil sanctions is helping to build up Ian Smith's war machine?

We are deeply concerned about any breaches of sanctions in Rhodesia. That is why we established the Bingham inquiry, why we take the matter seriously, and why we shall deal with the matter as urgently as possible.

Has the Minister seen the report in today's Daily Mail about the security position in Rhodesia? Will he come clean with the House, particularly since the safety of British citizens may be involved? Will he now spell out what positive action the Government will take to bring about reconciliation in that country in order to avoid large-scale disaster?

It would be wrong and inappropriate to speculate on contingency plans of the type referred to in press reports such as that in the Daily Mail today. The positive nature of our policy is clear. The only way forward is to bring all the parties together in an all-party conference and to gain a broader degree of agreement than exists in respect of the internal settlement.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are suspicions abroad that the Bingham report is being delayed because it may implicate certain British oil com- panics and certain hon. Members of the House?

I reject entirely the suggestion that there are deliberate attempts to delay the report. Mr. Bingham has tried to conduct the complicated and detailed inquiry with the utmost urgency. We hope that the report will be received within the next month.

If any persons are found to have supplied oil to Rhodesia, may they be recommended for a signal honour?

No. They may well have made a contribution to the problems that now face Rhodesia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments on the negotiations between the United Kingdom Government and Guatemala over the territorial integrity of Belize.

We are in touch with both Government and Opposition in Belize and with the new Guatemalan Government about the next stage in negotiations. Representatives of the Belize Government and Opposition will be present at all negotiations. Any settlement proposals will be put to the people of Belize in a referendum.

I welcome the last part of the Minister's reply, in which he said that any decisions will involve the people of Belize. May we have an assurance that nothing will be decided when the House is not sitting and that no decision about the future of this important little country will be decided without the House being fully involved?

Of course I can give that assurance. In order for Belize to become independent, legislation is required. That means that any proposal or settlement must come before the House.

Are we clearly standing by the principle of the full territorial integrity of Belize? Has the United States Administration now accepted this principle, and is it giving assistance by putting it across to Guatemala?

I do not think that we should slam doors on any possible developments that may emerge in future negotiations. The greatest safeguard for the people of Belize is that they themselves must approve by referendum any political settlement, and that this House must also give its approval.

It is obviously to be hoped that there will be an agreement in the next few months between the new Government of Guatemala, the British and the Belizeans. May I support and welcome the fact that the Minister has made it quite clear that there will be no change in the position of the Belizeans without their full consent?

I thank the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the Middle East peace talks.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's reaction to the talks held in London between the Foreign Ministers of Egypt and Israel.

The United Kingdom was not a party to the talks, but we were glad to be able to offer the facilities of Leeds Castle. We believe that the meetings there helped the two sides to reach a closer understanding of each other's position, and should pave the way for further discussions in the coming weeks.

Does the Minister agree that the Government of Jordan should be directly represented in any serious discussion on the future of the West Bank? Did the Foreign Secretary discuss this point with King Hussein during the King's recent visit to this country?

We believe strongly that a viable solution will depend on commitment by all the parties in the area. Obviously the involvement of the Jordanian Government would help in that process. It is, however, for the Jordanian Government to decide at which point to commit themselves to discussions.

Since perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the talks was the continuing negative attitude of the Israeli Government about withdrawal from the occupied territories, will the Minister now consider putting forward with the other members of the EEC a proposal that there should be a period of international trusteeship for the West Bank and Gaza following an Israeli withdrawal?

We are prepared to consider any constructive ideas. We do not feel that this is the precise moment at which to put forward a new initiative of that kind, but we are willing to keep any proposals under consideration. It is quite clear that the Government's view is that, in the spirit of resolution 242, a solution will depend on the willingness of Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.

is it not clear that the former terrorist Begin and his Government are intent on holding on to all the occupied territories, including Jerusalem and the West Bank? Is it not a fact that they also want peace, but that this is just not on? Does my hon. Friend agree that if Israel is to continue to exist it will have to change its attitude?

I think that, on reflection, my hon. Friend will agree that at this time we should all be making constructive observations in the hope that we can help a solution forward. Inflammatory language is best avoided at the moment. The Government's view is that it is in the interests not only of the international community but of Israel itself that Israel should face up to the implications of resolution 242 and accept the need for withdrawal from the occupied territories.

If the Minister would like to make a constructive observation this afternoon, would he care to follow the example of Senator Jacob Javits, who had the courage to say quite firmly that he thought that obstructive tactics were being used by the Begin Government? Surely the British Government should be aware that Mr. Begin's insistence on the Old Testament claims to Judea and Samaria, as he calls them, instead of on meaningful negotiations on the future of the West Bank, is contrary to Western interests, and is probably contrary to Israel's interests too. Should not the Minister say so?

The most helpful way in which the British and any other Government can help is to emphasise the positive actions that need to be taken in finding a way forward. In that context we have made it plain that we do not accept the Israeli case about, for example, settlements in the occupied territories, and that we believe them to be unhelpful. We have made it plain that we believe that it is necessary to make progress on the lines of resolution 242 in achieving an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one constructive step would be to strengthen the authority and effectiveness of the United Nations peacekeeping force in Southern Lebanon, which is being obstructed by a militia armed and financed by Israel?

I pay tribute to the United Nations force in Southern Lebanon, which, against very difficult odds, is behaving with considerable effectiveness and with distinction. If it is able to fulfil its task, and if all parties will cooperate in enabling it to do so, it will indirectly assist in the process of finding a solution in the Middle East, because it will regenerate confidence in the practical contribution that can be made by the international community through the United Nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations for force reductions in Europe.

In response to the Western initiative in April, the Warsaw Pact direct participants in the negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions tabled counter-proposals on 8th June. They represent the most significant Eastern move since the negotiations began, and we welcome the evident effort to meet some Western concerns. The proposals are complex, however, and require further clarification. Of the many issues which remain unresolved, the most notable is the fundamental question of the size of the forces to be reduced.

Will the Minister press HMG—

What is HMG?

Mind your own business.

Order. I always do that.

I apologise, Mr. Speaker, I intended no reflection on the Chair.

The British Government and, I believe, our NATO partners are determined to secure meaningful progress in the context of MBFR. Our view is that other measures for detente will be undermined if we cannot make progress on the military front. However, we want substantial, not illusory, progress. One of the biggest difficulties at the moment is the disparity in the calculations about the size of the forces on the two sides. That needs to be cleared up before we can make progress.

Since it is now suggested that the forces ranged against each other are not as was described in the Government's White Paper, which showed a heavy Russian preponderance in conventional arms and equipment over our own, is the Minister saying today that Her Majesty's Government stand by tae White Paper review of the situation? Or is he saying that they are beginning to doubt whether, as some Labour Members have said, the forces of the Soviet Union are not vastly superior to our own?

I must take up the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is open to the charge of ambiguity. We are quite certain that the quality of our forces is second to none, but in quantitative terms, as we see it, the Warsaw Pact numbers of ground forces are at present 150,000 greater than ours on that front, and the ratio in tanks is 2·7:1.

If our forces are qualitatively superior to those of the Warsaw Pact, and in view of the importance laid upon this matter by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his speech to the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, does my hon. Friend think that it was helpful in any way towards achieving agreement on these matters for NATO to have agreed in Washington, just before the Special Session, progressively to increase its armaments over a period exceeding the next 10 years?

The firm decision of the NATO Alliance to increase arms expenditure was taken reluctantly though necessarily because of a lack of meaningful progress in the disarmament negotiations. As a Minister who is second to nobody in Whitehall in a commitment to multilateral and effective disarmament, I believe that that can be achieved only in the context of firmness and of a clear indication to the Russians and their partners in the Warsaw Pact that if meaningful progress does not come about through mutual agreement we must take whatever measures are necessary to maintain our security.

Will the Minister of State please say when the level of discussion will be raised to the level of Foreign Ministers, as the Prime Minister announced to the House some time ago?

As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, what happened was that this proposal was put by us to our NATO partners at the summit conference. They accepted that this should be done when sufficient progress had been made at the technical level to make a meeting of Foreign Ministers worth while. Unfortunately, that point has not yet been reached, but as soon as it is reached I am sure that we shall go ahead with the conference.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the letter from the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Putney, in which the view was expressed that the Indonesian playwright, W. S. Rendra, should either be brought to trial without delay or released.

No, Sir, but my hon. Friend is at liberty to publish it if he so wishes.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. However, as he is aware, the Government have prepared a sort of league table of the degree to which human rights are repressed in various countries. Why is it that the Government will not publish that league table?

Because we do not consider it in the interests of our foreign relations generally to publish this table. The table was compiled for our own purposes for making decisions concerning human rights policy.

Is this not one more ludicrous example of the apparently unlimited capacity of Her Majesty's Government to sound off about the way in which foreign Governments treat their own nationals and call the odds about who should or should not be brought to trial, what sentences they should receive, and so on? What possible interest can it be to the people whom we represent here how foreign Governments treat their own citizens? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] World government may or may not be desirable, but it is no good behaving as though it is already in existence.

I am glad to say that I do not think that the hon. Member represents the views and feelings of the vast majority of the people of this country. I do not think that his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench would in any way endorse his suggestion that the people of this country are not concerned about, for example, recent events and recent trials in the Soviet Union, or the trial in Indonesia which was raised on this Question, and many other matters. We certainly are concerned about those matters. As for the hon. Member's suggestion that I have been sounding off on this question, in fact I made no statement at all about the situation.

Will my hon. Friend disregard the remarks of lumpen and insular reactionaries such as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Clark) and acknowledge the generally self-evident truth —at least, self-evident to all people who profess support for democracy—that we sustain our own freedoms best by trying to expand those of others?

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has just said. I am quite sure that the vast majority of the people of this country expect their Government to express firmly the views and feelings which they hold about human rights violations in all parts of the world.

Is it not a fact that within the last 24 hours Indonesia has released no fewer than 4,000 political prisoners? If that is true, should not the hon. Gentleman turn his attention to other countries that have political prisoners, such as the Soviet Union, and to countries whose Governments claim to have political prisoners, such as that of Mr. Andrew Young, even if they have not got them?

It is perfectly true that the Indonesian Government have announced a programme of releases of political prisoners. They are planning to release 10,000 this year and, I believe, a further 10,000 next year. I warmly congratulate the Indonesian Government on that programme. I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it would he very desirable if many other Governments who hold political prisoners would follow a similar course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that diplomatic bags are not being used to import arms into the United Kingdom illegally; and if he will make a statement.

The Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, to which the United Kingdom is a party, provides that diplomatic bags shall not be opened or detained. My right hon. Friend would, of course, take the gravest possible view were it to be shown that diplomatic privilege was being abused in order to import into this country weapons for illegal purposes.

Since the careful nature of the reply indicates that in the opinion of the Government it seems all too probable that diplomatic bags are used for precisely this purpose, should not protocol give way to screening? Could not requests be made, in the circumstances, for a screening operation for diplomatic bags, in view of the probability, in the light of what has been said, that arms are indeed imported in diplomatic bags?

I think that my hon. Friend is reading too much into the reply that I gave when he drew the conclusions that he did. His proposals for screening would not be consistent with the Vienna convention.

Is not the bacillus of defeatism and national self-denigration, which, unlike Lenin, does not even need a railway carriage, much more dangerous than any arms that might be brought into Britain in diplomatic bags?

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the arrangements which exist for the issue of passports through regional offices.

Until this year, arrangements for passport issues at regional offices have proved perfectly satisfactory. Present difficulties and delays have arisen entirely from a sudden 40 per cent. increase in overall demand this year, including monthly increases of 70 per cent. to 80 per cent. in one or two offices. Special steps have now been taken to reduce delays by the recruitment of extra staff, the transfer of work between offices, weekend working, and other measures.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he accept that it will be regarded by some as showing undue complacency, in view of the fact that the increased number of applications was known, in some cases, from January this year? There was an increase of over 50 per cent., for example, in the Peterborough office. Secondly, the delay of seven days in opening the applications is really quite unacceptable. That causes distress to a number of people who are caused great anxiety as a result of delays of six or seven weeks.

I must disabuse the hon. Member. There is certainly no complacency on this matter. Over several weeks I personally and others have been very much concerned to try to improve the situation. I announced some of the measures that have been taken. I very much regret the delay, but it was not possible to forecast, to the extent that the hon. Member seems to suggest, the increases in demand that have taken place.

Will the Minister ask the passport offices to review the practice of cashing a cheque immediately while not, perhaps, issuing the passports for many weeks? Is the Minister aware that if a commercial concern cashed a customer's cheque and failed to deliver the goods rather quickly, the whole weight of the consumer organisations would be brought down on its head?

I know that there is concern about this point, but in fact it is inevitable that cheques are cashed almost immediately.

Why?

Because of the difficulties of security in maintaining large amounts of cash in the passport offices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Cheques."]—without adequate protection. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) says, I would say that the great majority of commercial firms pursue a similar practice.

As the problem obviously stems from increased demand for passports on the part of British people, is this due to our rotten weather or to the success of British Government policies in increasing the prosperity of our people in recent months?

I would guess that the reason is a combination of those factors. People have more money in their pockets at present. That has to be taken into account, together with the fact that there are reduced air fares to a number of countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response he has had to the representations made to the Government of the USSR about the recent trials of Soviet supporters of the Helsinki agreement.

The Soviet authorities have not made any response to the British Government on this subject.

In view of that reply, by which I am not surprised, will not the Foreign Secretary call in the Soviet Ambassador and reaffirm the very strong feelings of the British people about these shameful trials in Russia? Also, will he be prepared to take actions in the form of trade sanctions against the Russian Government so that they understand how strongly we feel?

At a recent meeting with Mr. Gromyko, my right hon. Friend took the opportunity to express the very strong feelings that are held in this country about violations of human rights in the Soviet Union. In addition to that, as I think the House knows, a number of steps have been taken since the trials of Mr. Shcharansky and Mr. Ginzburg—the cutting off of a number of visits, the cancellation of a visit by a helicopter team to the Soviet Union, the postponement of a visit of officers to the Gagarin Academy in the Soviet Union, and a number of very strong statements by my right hon. Friend and by the Prime Minister.

Is my hon. Friend aware that 178 Labour Back-Benchers signed a letter to the Soviet Ambassador regarding Shcharansky and Ginzburg? Is he also aware that the national executive committee of the Labour Party has also made its position absolutely clear? However, would not my hon. Friend agree with me that in this matter we must keep a very clear balance, and that some people are trying to use the situation to go overboard and so make relationships with the Soviet Union difficult and lead us into a cold war atmosphere? Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we must fight for human rights in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, we do not at the same time have to get into a cold war situation?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I welcome the fact that 178 Labour Members of this House signed that letter and took steps to deliver it personally to the Soviet Ambassador. I hope that the Soviet Government have taken careful notice of it. But I agree that it is important that while we should make no secret of our very strong feelings on the subject, we should not take steps that are likely, over the long term, to damage our relations, so that, for example, negotiations over disarmament and other matters are affected, and, above all, we should not cut off the contacts that it has always been our policy to intensify.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the programme formulated for the second half of 1978 by the German President of the Council of Ministers.

Yes, Sir.

Can the hon. Gentleman say a little more? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a meeting with the Council of Finance Ministers a few days ago. Does the Minister regard that as a satisfactory beginning for a more positive effort on the part of the Government to get the monetary fusion plan really under way?

The position is that the Finance Ministers were asked to get on with the job. There is a lot of work to be done before further consideration takes place, and that work is now well under way.

Will my hon. Friend explain to his EEC colleagues that the test of the Bremen currency proposals is whether they are workable and helpful to our economic prospects and those of Europe and not whether they accord with some narrow theology of European unity? Will my hon. Friend throw his weight against any such Pavlovian response and ensure that we take a severely practical approach to these questions?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the way in which these proposals will be judged by people throughout the Community—and, indeed, in history—is not in terms of their theoretical economic virtues but on whether, as my hon. Friend has said, they help the ordinary people in the Community.

As we are within days of the Davignon steel plan, will the Minister convey to the President of the Council our considerable concern that West Germany is acting as a back door to the excess of imports of steel, against the rules of the Community, from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania? Is he aware that many of these steels are special steels, with the result that we cannot compete in the United Kingdom with the prices and that many of our steel plants are working at less than capacity? Will he deal with this problem when he next meets the President?

I am glad to be able to reassure the hon. Lady that I dealt with this question yesterday in the Council of Ministers. There are two distinct problems. First, there is a general problem of indirect imports via other Community members from Eastern Europe. On that point, I sought and secured from the Commissioner an undertaking that something would be done in the next two weeks with a view to intervention, if necessary, by the Commission in August. Secondly, on the very difficult and complex issue of special steels—a problem which has wrought havoc in places like Sheffield already—I put as strongly as I could the fact that we want to see results. Indeed, I got an undertaking from the Commission that. it would take up the matter as a matter of urgency.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes will take place in the common agricultural policy as a result of the Bremen meeting.

The common agricultural policy was strongly criticised at Bremen because of its wasteful use of resources. The Commission was asked to report to the next European Council in December with proposals for remedial action. We are looking for decisions which will reduce costs in 1980 and subsequent years.

Would not the Minister agree that while a common agricultural policy—a policy for Common Market agriculture—sbould continue, it is the internal arrangements that are wrong and that, if we are to have any monetary adjustments or harmonisation in future, the condition of making that move must be that there are these internal changes in the CAP? Will the Government move towards that policy in their last few months of office?

When the Government resume office after the General Election, whenever that may be, we shall continue to have at the top of our priority list the fundamental reform of the CAP. As far as we are concerned, the best structural policy for the CAP is a firm price policy. What we want to do is to eliminate unnecessary structural surpluses, thereby getting a better equilibrium between supply and demand and looking to the interests of consumers throughout the Community.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that, irrespective of their other effects, any results of the Bremen proposals to realign currencies or to prevent their disturbance could only strengthen the CAP? Therefore, would not such a result be against the policy of both sides of this House of reforming the CAP?

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have made it plain that in our approach to any monetary policies which may now be discussed we are determined to see two other priorities fulfilled. One is a real commitment in the Community—there is genuine movement in this direction now—to fundamental reform of the CAP on the lines that I have indicated. The second is generally greater economic convergence within the Community, because, if the disparities and injustices which at present exist within the Community continue or become aggravated, any mone- tary reform or reorganisation would knock us into disadvantage.

Does not the Minister agree that a firm price policy alone is not sufficient to reform the CAP but that there must be greater emphasis on the guidance and structural section? Unless that is done, it will be hopeless to try to stay firm on the firm prices policy alone. Will the hon. Gentleman point out to his German colleague that it is in Germany that the vast amount of the surpluses which are worrying the Community—the milk sector in particular—are being accumulated?

The hon. Gentleman, with his experience, has touched on several vital points. One of the things that cannot be emphasised too often is that, whatever our own level of economic activity in comparison with those of other members of the Community, we are the second largest net contributors to the Community. Therefore, we have a right to speak out on the abuse of funds, as we see it, going towards building up unnecessary and wasteful surpluses. But I repeat that in our view the best structural policy is a firm price policy within the CAP.

Will my hon. Friend put on record whether it is the Government's view that, as far as the overall budget of the Community is concerned, we intend to press that the proportion of money used for agricultural support be reduced?

The position is clear. With over 70 per cent. of the Community budget now going into a CAP that is manifestly not an acceptable policy, the credibility of the Community and its budget is under severe test. We believe that if the credibility of the Community, and of its budget as a central part of its life, is to be restored, that trend has to be significantly reversed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to visit the European Parliament.

My right hon. Friend has, at present, no plans to visit the European Assembly.

Will the Foreign Secretary consider making an early visit to the European Parliament, possibly at its September sitting, in order to reassure it that the British Government give full support to the Franco-German proposals for monetary integration? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that such a stabilisation programme must inevitably fail unless it is regarded as a first step to a full common currency and monetary union in Europe?

I am not sure that my right hon. Friend would find that the most productive use of his time in September, but I am sure that he will look with interest at the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, unless his right hon. Friend wants to be bored, he might as well save a lot of taxpayers' money by staying at home in Britain?

No. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, when he last visited the Assembly during our Presidency, found it a most enjoyable occasion and was most impressed by the contributions of the representatives of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if his right hon. Friend went to the Assembly in the terms indicated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson), it would represent an abject surrender on the part of the British Government which would not be tolerated by this House of Commons?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be more inclined to that point of view. That is one of the reasons why I do not think that he would find a visit in September productive.

Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend, if he should visit the European Parliament or the European Assembly or whatever it is called, to take up the issue of the mountains of foodstuffs which are being stored in Europe, to no one's advantage? It is now costing many millions of pounds a year to keep them out of circulation. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is one of the most monumental scandals perpetrated by the Common Market since its inception?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not take an opportunity to visit the European Assembly for that purpose, but my hon. Friend can remain assured that that is precisely the point of view which Her Majesty's Government are reflecting in the Council of Ministers, which is the place where that sort of point needs to be made, because that is where the responsibility for decision making lies.

Is the Minister aware that, despite earlier assurances from his colleagues, we have still not seen, let alone approved, the draft regulations governing the first direct elections to the European Parliament to be held in this country? What is the reason for this further hang-up?

I am not aware of the details. I shall have to look at them and get in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items he intends to place on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers.

It is too early to say what items will be discussed at our next meeting in September.

I thank the Minister for that very helpful and full reply. Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to place on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers the question of the operation of the veto by member States, and make it absolutely clear to his European colleagues that Her Majesty's Government are determined to maintain the right to veto any proposals, on fisheries or anything else, that we feel are not in our national interests?

My hon. Friend has no doubt noticed that in the context of discussions about enlargement there have been some suggestions that voting procedures in the Council of Ministers might be changed. We have made it very clear that we are not in favour of any changes of that sort, precisely for the kind of reason that my hon. Friend emphasised effectively in his question.

In view of the welcome decision of the United States Senate to end the embargo on the sale of arms to Turkey, will the Minister recommend three steps to his EEC colleagues—first, an international rescue operation for the Turkish economy, secondly, some streamlining of the very large Turkish forces, and, thirdly, concessions on Turkey's part with a view to reaching a settlement in Cyprus?

With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is slightly confused, because some members of the EEC are not members of the NATO Alliance; therefore it would not be appropriate to discuss with them the kinds of military considerations that he mentioned in his question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that not everybody will agree with the tone of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths)? Is he further aware that many people feel that a European country which uses NATO arms for invading an independent Commonwealth country near to it should be the subject of some form of sanctions? We all want the economy of Turkey to be strong, but is my hon. Friend aware that no one on the Labour Benches would condone the sort of lifting of sanctions that is taking place in the United States?

Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his very special knowledge of Cyprus, would agree that that island has had a tortuous history. Whatever may or may not have happened in the past, the southern flank of NATO is vital to the integrity of the Alliance as a whole. I believe that it is in that context that we have to look at what was decided yesterday in the United States Senate.

Turning to another serious subject, will the Minister ensure, either at the next meeting or arising from his last meeting, that the Lomé Convention is considered further in relation to the major concern of ex-British colonial countries that the amount of aid that is going to ex-French colonial countries is proportionately very much greater, under the convention, than that which is going to ex-British colonial countries? Does he agree that that ought to be looked at most seriously?

That very point arose at the discussions this week. We are glad that the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention got off to a good start, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it very plain yesterday that we believe, in the spirit of the Bonn summit—where specific undertakings about responsibilities to the third world were given—that it is very important to recognise that the poorest countries in the world include many which are non-associate States and have the biggest populations. The population of India is very much bigger than that of all the associate States put together. From this standpoint we favour a greater contribution by the Community to the non-associate States, rather than simply concentrating on the associate States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the purpose of harmonisation in the European Community.

The purpose of harmonisation is to facilitate intra-Community trade by removing technical barriers and by establishing common laws to regulate some aspects of commercial activity.

Why cannot the European Community concentrate on its basic aims of promoting peace and prosperity and stop wasting the time of member countries with useless proposals to harmonise the laws relating to jam, honey, jelly, chestnut purée, correspondence courses, the size of eggs, the length of tape measures, hot-water meters, and the charges for testing gas meters?

I am not sure that everyone would be against harmonisation of honey. Concerning the general principle, however, I must say that the view of the Government is that we must resist in the Community any temptation on the part of the Commission or anybody else to achieve harmonisation for harmonisation's sake. We are in favour of harmonisation only where this makes a qualitative improvement to life within the Community. Under the unanimity rule, it is necessary to have the support of all member States for projects for harmonisation; therefore we are in a position to block any proposed harmonisation which we think is nonsense.

Is the Minister aware that the proposed EEC lawnmowers make less noise but do not cut the grass?

I will pass that information to my wife.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet the President of the EEC Commission.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet next Commissioner Jenkins.

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

My right hon. Friend expects to see him on 19th September.

Will my hon. Friend ensure that it is communicated to our right hon. Friend that it is important that textiles should be discussed when he meets the President? There is a great deal of concern about the working of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, particularly in relation to imports from the Mediterranean associates, who are disrupting the market by dumping. Is it not time that we told the Commission to take action on this question?

I recognise the strength of feeling on this score. It is because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade also feels strongly that he has battled so hard within the Council to get tighter control of policy on this front. Having battled hard, he received yesterday the reassurances that he had sought, and was therefore able to give his consent to the agreed policy. But the Community must he effective in the implementation of what is agreed at Council meetings.

rose—

Order. I shall call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered. Sir Anthony Meyer.

Since the Government correctly maintain that Britain's problems, and particularly our unemployment problem, can be solved only by international agreement, does it really make sene to pretend that agreement within the EEC can be reached only on British terms, as the Treasury evidently contends, in terms of the monetary agreement?

What has become very clear in recent years is that while the Community working together can make a contribution to growth and sound international economic management—which is the only way in which we can overcome the serious problem of unemployment which affects all our countries—this cannot be solved exclusively within a Community context. That is why we feel that we must pursue policies that will be effective, such as those at the Bonn summit, which brought together a wider group of industrialised nations. I believe that progress was made in that direction at the recent Bonn summit.

Will the Minister tell Mr. Jenkins that this country will not be sucked in to his Bremen monetary arrangement purely by high-sounding cliches, the sort of thing which sucked this country into the Common Market in the first place? Can we have an assurance that the Government will approach this matter in a pragmatic and practical way?

I am not sure whether the hon Gentleman was with us earlier when I dealt with questions on this front. I can give him an undertaking that the Government's approach is highly pragmatic and practical. We shall go along only with those arrangements which, apart from their high-falutin' theory, can be demonstrated to he in people's interests. In this context we look for reform on the CAP and for greater economic and social convergence as the other side of the coin in the overall policies of the Community.

Will the Brussels spokesman confirm that while it may be dangerous to harmonise jam, jelly and crumpet, as suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), it is more sinister to accept the harmonisation plan evinced by the Franco-German proposal in relation to our currency? Does he accept that that will mean the industrial domination by the West Germans of our economy to a growing extent and ensure that the common agricultural policy, which assists France, will remain unchanged for ever?

I recognise and, indeed, respect the strength of feeling of my hon. Friend on this matter, but I emphasise to him that it is a far cry from a greater degree of monetary stability to a common currency, and at this juncture there is no question of our becoming committed to any concept of a common currency.

Is the Minister aware that his earlier reply on the question of majority voting will have reassured many hon. Members who watched the ominous developments at the Council of Agriculture Ministers this week? Would it not be helpful if, in future, when he makes a statement of forthcoming business at Council meetings, he made quite clear those matters in respect of which we would insist on a unanimous decision as opposed to a majority decision?

I shall certainly have a look at that proposition, but I believe that wherever contentious issues arise—issues which have been referred to the House by the Scrutiny Committee for debate—it is absolutely essential that we as a Government take into account the views of right hon. and hon. Members before finalising our position.

Will the Minister remind Mr. Jenkins that in December 1976 Mr. Gundelach and the previous Commission at one go scrapped 35 draft directives, on the ground that they were unlikely to be approved? Would not it be a great relief to us all if there were now a similar bonfire?

That may or may not be a good suggestion. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman and I would agree that it would be much better if the Commission were to concentrate its attention, priority and resources on things that are really of practical benefit rather than getting into the predicament of expending time and energy on ideas which it is clear will be rejected by the body politic.