asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will initiate discussions with the Government of the United States of America with a view to abolishing the requirement for British subjects to obtain a visa before entering the United States of America.

Since the United Kingdom unilaterally abolished the visa requirement for United States citizens in 1948, the American Government have been well aware that we regard a reciprocal waiver of visas for United Kingdom citizens as highly desirable. A recent recommendation by the United States Senate that their visa requirement should be waived for certain visitors is under consideration by the United States Government. It is to be hoped that this will produce the result which we have long sought.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the House is grateful for that reply? Will he press the United States Government on this matter? I am sure that many hon. Members find it objectionable that British subjects are required to queue daily in Grosvenor Square to go through this bureaucratic procedure. I hope he agrees that it is about time that British subjects were treated on the same basis as United States citizens.

My hon. Friend's question will contribute to that which he seeks. We in the Government will certainly add what we can.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the delay often experienced at the United States Embassy by British citizens requesting visas is, if not considerable, at least worrying? That contributes also to the annoyance. That is quite wrong when we have many friends here from America, and it should be corrected.

As American citizens are not required to obtain a visa to come here, I hope that the United States Government will be able to waive the requirement altogether, as requested in my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to make a visit to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now afford recognition to the new State of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the statement that I made yesterday. I have at present no plans to visit Rhodesia.

Has the Lord Privy Seal had an opportunity to heed Lord Carver's words in another place yesterday, that Bishop Muzorewa was shielding himself from the African sun with a white parasol? If the Government profess major admiration for the bishop and his Administration, should not they be helping him by insisting on the removal of the white parasol in the form of Mr. Ian Smith?

With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a great interest in the matter, that was a bit contrived. I have not yet seen Lord Carver's remarks. I shall read them. I made our position clear yesterday. We look forward to having most useful talks with Bishop Muzorewa later in the week.

In seeking the widest possible international support for bringing Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to legal independence, will my right hon. Friend ensure that he has regard for the stability of the Government in that country so that everyone may continue in a civilised existence?

I entirely agree with both prongs—if that is the right word—of my hon. Friend's question. The two things are equally important. It is vital that there should be wide international acceptance and that the stability and continuity of the Government should be preserved.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, first, that all the conditions laid down on HMS " Tiger " for a return to legality have now been met and, secondly, that when Bishop Muzorewa's Government came to power thousands of black Rhodesians voted and refused to be intimidated by terrorist threats? Does he appreciate that delay in recognition not only amounts to moving the tape while the race is still on but seriously weakens the opportunity for the Muzorewa Government to succeed in peace and gives a strong push to the power of the terrorists?

I confess that I no longer have in my head exactly what was decided on HMS " Tiger," but I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Of course I follow the force of my hon. Friend's argument, but I am sure she will concede that it is deeply in the interests not only of this country—we should not neglect the interests of this country—but of the people about whom my hon. Friend is concerned who live in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia that a settlement should be as widely accepted as possible and that it should take place in a context that brings forward the likelihood of an end to the war. Surely that is in the interests of the people now living in Rhodesia.

When the Lord Privy Seal meets the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia at the weekend, will he inquire why the people of that country are not allowed to buy a copy of the bishop's book because it was banned by the previous Government?

That may or may not be an interesting question. I do not guarantee to answer it, because it is arguable that I may have more important questions to deal with.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although consultations with other nations are extremely important, we, as the colonial Power, have the right to lead in these matters, that many other nations are waiting for that leadership and that this is the prime concern of Her Majesty's Government?

What my hon Friend says is true. That is why I said in my statement yesterday that when our consultations have been completed we shall make proposals designed to bring Rhodesia to legal independence on a basis which we believe to be acceptable to the international community. I believe that it should be done based on British proposals, and that will be done.

As we had a thin statement yesterday, although there was a thick statement from the Prime Minister in Australia, may we have clarification, before we have a debate on Rhodesia, of the Government's attitude to maintaining sanctions after November? As North Sea oil will be exported to South Africa, is there any guarantee that that will not get through to Rhodesia while sanctions are maintained?

The position with regard to sanctions was made clear by the answers of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the House on 3 July. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is quite untrue. There is no question of North Sea oil going anywhere near South Africa.

I appreciate the importance of the talks that are at present proceeding, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to avoid, at all costs, any undue delay or impression of indecision in this matter which will make it far more difficult to deal with Black Africa in particular and all parties generally? Also, does my right hon. Friend acknowledge the danger if he were to delay, because he runs the risk of falling into a policy indistinguishable from that of the previous Government?

Of course we shall not delay unduly. Equally, as my hon. Friend suggested yesterday, we shall not proceed with undue haste. This is a matter of the utmost gravity which concerns the lives of a great many people. It is only right that we should proceed through consultation with our allies and others concerned and, indeed, with Bishop Muzorewa. That is what we are doing.

I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal one question arising from an interesting passage in the speech of his right hon. Friend, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, yesterday. The noble Lord refers there to making proposals for Rhodesia

" comparable with the terms on which we have granted independence to other countries in the Commonwealth."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 July 1979; Vol. 401, c. 763.]

Basically, that we should set up an independent Government enjoying majority democratic support.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if the pilot scheme for political education on the value of NATO for 17 to 19-year-old pupils sponsored by the European Atlantic Movement, partly financed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been published; if not, whether it will be published; which schools are taking part; if local councillors and parents have been consulted; and if he will make a statement.

This scheme, which is part of an international experiment, is still being tested. The organisers have not yet decided whether it merits publication. Six educational institutions in this country are taking part in the experiment. I am writing to the hon. Gentleman with further details.

As brainwashing of youth by a pressure group is unprincipled, will the Minister immediately ban this blatant exercise in indoctrination? How can we, or the Minister, expect objectivity on NATO from its foremost advocates?

I find that a most extraordinary approach. NATO is a organisation to which Britain has belonged for 30 years, with the support of all parties in this House. Surely there is everything to be said for the widest possible discussion of its purpose and policy.

The remarks of my hon. Friend will receive the support of all Members on this side of the House and all those in the country who recognise the contribution to peace that NATO has made in the past 30 years and hopes to make during the next 30 years, provided that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) does not have his way.

I quite agree. It is up to the schools to decide whether they wish to pursue this. It is not for the Government. I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's remarks.

Will the Minister ensure that these proposals are judged on their merits? Will he bear in mind that it is the responsibility of all politicians and political parties in this country to ensure that our young people understand all the angles and differing views about Britain's participation in NATO and the vital part that our participation plays in maintaining freedom?

I quite agree, and I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support.

Will my hon. Friend tell the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) that he would not have the opportunity to make the nauseating statements that he makes regularly if it had not been for NATO over the last 30 years?

That is, of course, entirely true.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to visit Latin America.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present. I hope shortly to visit the Falkland Islands and a number of countries in Latin America.

Will the Minister assure the House that there is no intention on the part of the Government to send an ambassador to Chile? Does he remember the brutal torture of Dr Sheila Cassidy? Is he aware of the thousands of people who have disappeared, many of whom are dead, and that many such cases are known to hon. Members? Will he assure us that the policy of the Labour Government on the appointment of ambassadors will continue?

We are considering our relationship with Chile. On the other hand, whether we have ambassadors in various countries does not imply condonation or condemnation of a regime. After all, we have an ambassador in Vietnam.

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite South America's enormous economic potential and immense good will towards the British that area is inexplicably neglected by us? Will he, on his tour, be seeking to arouse us from our indifference? Does he think, for example—to take last night's television programme as an illustration—that the fact that our man in Caracas operates the British embassy from a suite of offices in a tower block represents a sufficient commitment to that oil-rich country?

I shall do everything that I can, as will my right hon. and hon. Friends, to improve relations between this country and Latin American countries, but that must be contained within the need to keep public expenditure under control.

Does the Minister realise that if we sent an ambassador to Chile it would be seen and interpreted by the Chilean regime as a significant change of policy? Does he realise that the policy of the Labour Government was supported by democratic opinion in Chile, both Right and Left, as well as the Church? Will the Minister confirm that he will maintain the arms embargo on the Chilean regime?

If the Government of the hon. Gentleman considered the withdrawal of ambassadors and the need to express political disapproval, why did they not withdraw our ambassador from Vietnam?

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Great Britain's relations with Uganda.

The British Government recognised the new Ugandan Government on 15 April. We are maintaining normal relations with the Government of President Binaisa.

Do the Government know the whereabouts of Idi Amin? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Uganda is a special case for aid? Finally, will he do all in his power to make sure that all necessary humanitarian aid is given to Uganda as it tries to break away from the disastrous years of Idi Amin?

We have no knowledge of the whereabouts of ex-President Amin. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the change of Government and the beneficient results flowing therefrom. Discussions with the Ugandan Government are proceeding on the allocation of the emergency aid grant already agreed. I had discussions with the Ugandan Foreign Minister when he was here, and we intend to resume a full Uganda aid programme when circumstances permit.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in April, after talks between British officials and the new Uganda Government, £1 million of aid was immediately offered, with a commitment of £10 million of aid? I am aware that £1 million has been given, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, to give the Prime Minister some degree of credibility before the Lusaka conference, that commitment should be honoured?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing the aid programme. I had useful talks with the Ugandan Foreign Minister. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not altogether easy at present exactly to decide how aid should be spent. However, we are in touch with the Uganda Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the implementation by the Soviet Union and its allies of the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act.

Progress on implementation by the Soviet Union and her allies has in general been slow and uneven. For detailed comment on the record of implementation during the last six months, I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 25 June.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the forthcoming trial of the 10 members of the Charter 77 group in Czechoslovakia is totally incompatible with the Helsinki agreement? Does he agree also that there is no point in holding the Madrid review conference next year if the Soviet Union and its allies continue to harass and persecute human rights campaigners in the way that they are doing at the present time?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point, and we have so told the Czechoslovak Government. On the whole, we believe that the review conference in Madrid, and similar occasions, offer a means that would not otherwise exist for pressing for the carrying out of the Helsinki agreement in full. We believe that the right course is to go to Madrid and to make good use of that opportunity.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we all applaud his intention of continuing to press the Soviet authorities to implement the final act of the Helsinki agreement in Madrid and elsewhere? Before Madrid, will he emphasise to the Soviet authorities that while they continue to keep people in gaol, and people such as Slepak, Nudel and Begun in exile, there is very little prospect of our regarding their compliance as anything other than minimal?

Of course, it is the existence of the Helsinki agreement that gives us the standing to make that kind of point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Soviet Union is one of the biggest and strongest backers of the Vietnamese Government? What representations have we made to the Soviet Union to try to bring pressure upon the Vietnamese Government to stop implementing one of the most racialist, barbaric and brutal policies in the exploitation of their own people that the world has ever known?

I agree with my hon. Friend's phrase. My right hon. Friend has made these points to the Soviet Government, and so did the Prime Minister when she stopped over in the Soviet Union on her way to Tokyo.

I agree totally with those hon. Members who oppose what is happening in Czechoslovakia and Eastern Europe, but may I appeal to Conservative Members to stand up and speak out as loudly as they do on the Soviet Union on countries such as Chile and others in Latin America?

Order. That is not a question.

That is almost the oldest argument in the House. However, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we now have in Vietnam a quite exceptional and appalling case, and it is pathetic to read in the Tribune newspaper attempts to excuse what is going on.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it makes a total mockery of the spirit of the Helsinki agreement when the Soviet Government continue to persecute and imprison their own citizens for doing no more than monitoring the activities of of their own Government in carrying out the Helsinki agreement? What further steps does my hon. Friend propose to take to increase the free flow of information, as set out in basket 3, so that, for example, the Daily Telegraph and Daily Mirror can be as freely available in Moscow as Pravda is in London?

My hon. Friend, who follows this matter very carefully, knows that we continually press these points, and that from time to time there have been occasional signs of progress. I would not put it higher than that.

We, too, of course attach great importance to the Helsinki final act and its implementation. We share the view that the Madrid review is bound to be helpful in giving us the occasion precisely to press the defects and shortcomings in its implementation so far. Is the Helsinki final act being kept under close monitoring by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? What information does the hon. Gentleman have about the flow of Jewish people from Russia and other Eastern European countries?

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's last point, this is an area in which there has been some improvement, although there is a long way to go. Of course we are keeping the implementation of the Helsinki agreement under close review. If we were not, the House of Commons would rightly insist that we did.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next proposes to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

My hon. Friends the Ministers of State—the Members for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)—have recently met Mr. Hartling, and further meetings are planned by Ministers.

In anticipation of those meetings, can my hon. Friend tell the House whether there has been any response from the Government of Vietnam to the representations that have been made to them to desist from their present policy, which is barely distinguishable from genocide? Can he further say whether recent reports in the press that the Government intend to accept for permanent resettlement into this country no fewer than 10,000 refugees a year are true—as I am sure this House would wish—or whether it is intended to make such an announcement? Thirdly, what response has there been from other countries—such as Japan, which has shown very little inclination to take refugees—to be more responsive to their international responsibilities?

The strongest possible representations have been made to the Government of Vietnam, but, instead of desisting, it appears that they are even increasing the export of their citizens in this cruel and barbarous way. The Government hope that the conference convened by the United Nations on 20 and 21 July will help greatly to find both finance and homes for the refugees. To that extent my right hon. Friends are considering the number that can be taken into this country, and a statement will be made in due course.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is probably one of the most serious refugee problems that the world has had to face since the 1930s? Will he go further on the attitude that the Government ought to take? Is he aware that many other Governments have announced what numbers they will take? Is he aware of the great pressure from voluntary organisations that there should be a more positive, humane and constructive attitude on behalf of the Government?

I agree that this is one of the greatest refugee problems that there has ever been, although I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to condemn the reasons for its existence.

I do.

As I said earlier, the Government are considering the number of refugees that can be accepted into this country, and in due course a statement will be made.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now bring the conduct of the Government of Vietnam before the Security Council of the United Nations.

The Government have made clear their abhorrence of the conduct of the Vietnamese authorities in forcing so many of its population to flee the country, causing tragic loss of life amongst the refugees and serious problems where they land. These problems will be considered at the special meeting called by the United Nations Secretary General in Geneva on 20 and 21 July.

Does my hon. Friend agree that that will be a suitable opportunity to take the conduct of Vietnam to the Security Council? It is difficult to see a reason for delay. If the argument is that the Soviet Union may reply with a veto, it will stand to be seen by all as a direct supporter of a most repressive and racist regime.

It is likely that the Soviet Union would veto discussion of that matter in the United Nations. For that reason, it is much more desirable to attend the special conference on 20 and 21 July that has been called for the express purpose of discussing the matter and, I hope, placing the blame fairly and squarely where it should be placed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reassurances Her Majesty's Government have received from the Government of the United States that articles XII and XIII of the Salt II agreement will not preclude any further Nassau-type agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain for the sales of strategic launch vehicles or the transfer of strategic weapons technology, including cruise missile technology.

President Carter has already made it quite clear in public that Salt II will not affect existing patterns of co-operation and collaboration within the Alliance, nor will it preclude co-operation in modernisation. We have also discussed this confidentially with the Americans. I cannot give details of confidential exchanges, but we are satisfied from the assurances we have received that British interests are safeguarded.

The House will wish to consider at greater length the important reassurances that the Government have received from President Carter and the United States Administration on the matter. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what articles XII and XIII prevent, if it is not a circumvention of the SALT II agreement by the sale or transfer of strategic weaponry to third countries?

With respect to my hon. Friend, he is confusing the non-circumvention clause with a no-transfer clause. He will remember that there was a no-transfer clause in the antiballistic missile treaty of 1972. I am glad to say that the United States resisted successfully the Soviet demands for a no-transfer clause in SALT II.

Will the Minister accept that we do not want another Nassau-type agreement in which Polaris-type weapons are adopted? Will he also accept that this country is a subscriber to the non-proliferation treaty and that, from that point of view, we should be considering phasing out Polaris rapidly? That would provide a practical demonstration to other nations which may be considering adopting nuclear weapons that they are totally irrelevant, expensive, deter nobody and should be scrapped completely.

I do not agree with any part of the hon. Gentleman's question. We have clearly stated that part of our defence policy is to maintain the effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. We intend to do that as a high priority. Moreover, as we already possess nuclear weapons, in no sense can we be said, by continuing to possess them, to be in any way circumventing the non-proliferation treaty.

Do not these exchanges indicate that there is a plain need for the House to debate the subject? Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to consult the Leader of the House, who has recently entered the Chamber, with a view to ensuring that that is arranged before the Summer Recess?

I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has heard what my right hon. Friend has said.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to meet his EEC counterparts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to attend a meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the other EEC Foreign Affairs Ministers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet his European Economic Community colleagues.

At the next Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 24 July.

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate what proposals the Government are bringing forward to reduce our share of the EEC budget? Will he acknowledge that price freezes would still leave an open-ended commitment to pay for excess production? The only way to stop a further disastrous escalation of the budget is to limit financial support to production quotas, which are then steadily reduced.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that at the European Council last month the Commission was invited to submit to the Council a description of the financial consequences of applying the budget system on the situation in each member State, especially in 1979 and 1980. The Commission will subsequently put forward proposals for a solution. That is an important step in the right direction. I believe that there is a strong case for saying that member States with a below average gross domestic product per head should be net beneficiaries, but I do not wish to go into that in detail at present.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, following the Strasbourg Council of Ministers, and in stark contrast to the British Government's euphoria about the outcome of that meeting, President Giscard d'Estaing said that all that has been agreed is to see whether the budget anomalies are inequitable or excessive? Does that not represent a failure of British diplomacy to convince the French even that our present budget contributions are excessive? In the light of that, what serious chance is there of securing French agreement to a reduction of the British contribution?

I do not believe that that is right, but in so far as it is the hon. Gentleman is condemning the efforts of the previous Government to bring home that problem to our partners. We found that there was not a proper realisation of the inequities and difficulties. We are now fully confident that those inequities have been brought home. The results of the Strasbourg Council were satisfactory.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell those other people across there that on 7 June the British people, and the working class in particular, rejected the Common Market by their massive vote of no confidence in the election? Will he tell his colleagues in the Conservative Party as well as those over there that there will be no moves towards parity of those Westminster MPs elected on the miserly one-third vote of the British people on that date? If he does that, he will be acting in the interests of the British people and of most hon. Members.

The second part of the hon. Gentleman's question did not make sense. I do not know what he means by " parity ". On the first part of his question, he seems to be incredibly ignorant of the laws of mathematics. At that election the Conservative Party, which favours the European Parliament and membership of the European Community, won three-quarters of the seats. The hon. Gentleman seems to be under the misapprehension that his party won the election. It did not.

If the Commission brings forward proposals to reduce Britain's contribution to the EEC budget, will any of the other member Governments have power to veto them? More importantly, does the right hon. Gentleman think that they will exercise the veto?

The agreement to alter our budgetary contribution will have to be reached by the European Council and will entail general agreement. The facts will first be put forward by the European Commission. These will be commented on by the European Finance Ministers and the matter will be discussed and, we hope, decided at the Dublin summit at the end of the year.

My right hon. Friend told us yesterday that he would be consulting our European partners as well as America and Africa about Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Will he tell his European colleagues that in the opinion of Lord Home, who devised the six principles, these have been fully met by the Muzorewa Government? Will he also tell them that in the opinion of Lord Boyd, with his vast experience of Africa and his recent experience of the election, it would be dangerous to tamper with the existing constitution?

I hope that our partners study the proceedings of both Houses of this Parliament with the care and attention that they deserve and that I shall not have to draw those important points to their attention. As my right hon. Friend knows, we are in constant consultation with our partners on that important subject.

Are the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues in other EEC countries aware that our membership of the Common Market remains equally unpopular here? Most people believe—and with a great deal of justification—that Britain is getting a raw deal from our membership. Can there be any doubt of what the result of a further referendum on membership would be?

The hon. Gentleman was not here in the last Parliament when his Government allegedly renegotiated the terms and presided over a referendum that showed the British people two to one in favour of our membership continuing. I do not believe that the British people would wish to go back on that decision.

Has the Lord Privy Seal noticed the interesting fact that in the general election the acknowledged pro-European party, namely, the Conservative Party, had a sweeping victory, having presented positive European themes in that election campaign?

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. We won that election decisively, and we won the European elections even more decisively. The evidence indicates the exact opposite of what the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said.

The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that in order to get any changes in the system of financial contributions that are so disproportionately heavy on this country there must be agreement with all the other countries of the EEC. Will he at least assure us that in seeking to register—and more than register—the serious complaint that we have about these arrangements he does not try to win some minor modification in our budget contribution by making concessions on such matters as steel, food prices and agriculture? We have already seen far too much of that.

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's premise. Now that he has studied it, he knows full well that the agricultural settlement last month was much the best that has been achieved since we entered the Community. It was far better than anything the Labour Government ever achieved. I agree that the budget problem is serious, but we have already made considerable progress. Our positive approach to the Community has already produced far greater results than the rather questionable hostility of the Labour Government over several years.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention and the role being played by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about the negotiations to renew the Lomé Convention agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of negotiation of the Lomé Convention.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the outcome of the talks between the ACP countries and the EEC on the successor convention to Lomé.

The text of a new and improved convention was substantially agreed at a ministerial negotiating conference in Brussels from 25 to 27 June. We now await the final decision of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States concerned. On the content of the new convention, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on 29 June.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one reason for the delay in acceptance by the ACP countries is their profound regret at the niggardly contributions that have been made to the expansion of the Lomé Convention? Will he and his ministerial colleagues be reconsidering some of the provisions that they have made in the light of the great increase in oil prices and the disastrous effect that that will have on some ACP countries?

No. The financial package put forward by the Community updated the aid figure in the first convention by allowing for price increases since then, and it also added to that. In all the circumstances, it was a reasonable proposition.

Does the Minister recognise that the stance of the British Government in these negotiations was foot dragging? The British Government were one of the hard-line Governments in these negotiations. Does he also recognise the degree to which developing countries suffer as a result of the operation of the CAP? What contribution will the Government make in the negotiations to ensure a much greater access of primary products into Europe, particularly beef and minerals?

I do not agree with the hon. Member's criticism. In the new convention, for the first time there is help to mineral producers whose production is interrupted. For the first time there is a clause about investment protection. Aid is increased and there are new commodities in the STABEX scheme, including rubber, and there is better access to the EEC for certain important Commonwealth commodities, such as beef and rum.

Will the Minister confirm that there are related but distinct negotiations concerning the 1·3 million tonnes of Commonwealth sugar which are at present imported under the ACP arrangement? Will he tell us the date on which the negotiations or renegotiations will begin? Also, will he recall to the French members of the EEC Council that under the Departments Outre Mer arrangements that they made for Ascension, Martinique and Reunion the cane sugar from these colonies is counted as part of that of metropolitan France? Should not the same arrangement apply to ACP countries?

The hon. Member knows that the sugar arrangements are quite separate from the convention that I have mentioned, and they run on in relation to quantity well beyond the date of expiry of the existing convention. I should like notice of his specific second point.

Is the Minister aware that the rum and banana protocols are very important, and there is clear evidence that the ACP countries are not content with the arrangements that have been agreed or with the advances that have been made? Why have they gone back to the ACP council to get its agreement if the arrangements are as marvellous as the Minister says?

I am not saying the arrangements are marvellous. They are the results of very tough negotiations, and obviously the ACP countries wanted more. My point—and it applies particularly to rum—is that, subject by subject, this new convention is an improvement from the point of view of both the ACP and the EEC.

Can my hon. Friend say whether any further consideration is being given or is proposed to be given to the incorporation into the renegotiated Lomé Convention of a reciprocal undertaking to observe fundamental human rights, particularly those expressed in articles I to XIV of the universal declaration?

At the last meeting the Community tabled a specific reference of this kind, but it was vehemently rejected by the ACP countries as out of place in an economic convention. That is a pity. But we should not confuse the shadow with the substance. The substance is that the Community should be willing and able to ensure that its aid is not given in circumstances in which it injures the real interests of the people in the recipient countries, and the Council of Ministers has agreed to consider how this should be achieved.

Is the Minister saying that the package on the table is on a take-it-or-leave-it basis? Is there not any opportunity for the ACP countries to make further representations or further claims in relation to this treaty?

The draft convention is the result of many weeks of long negotiation, including an all-night session at the end. After this was over the Community made it clear that it had reached the end of its negotiating position. We are now waiting to hear from the ACP countries whether they accept the convention with the improvements that I have mentioned. I very much hope that they will do so.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it ill behoves Labour Members to urge a further increase in products coming into Europe when they had five years to do that and failed? Will the Minister take account of the serious point that many of the ACP countries suggest in their domestic press that the actual money terms of the new arrangement represent major cuts compared with what was previously allowed? This is untrue, and it is important that our Government and European Governments get this message across to those nations.

I quite agree. I have tried to do that today. The financial part of these new arrangements is an improvement in real terms. These arrangements, if they are accepted, are a step—I do not put it more strongly than that—towards making the European Community a more open and outward-looking institution.

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

As I told my hon. Friend on 13 June, the Government expect and hope to play a leading role in the co-ordination of EEC foreign policies. We are working towards a common approach to a wide range of problems. Areas of agreement exist on issues as diverse as the Middle East, Vietnamese refugees and Nicaragua.

What progress has been made towards the setting up of a political secretariat for the nine member States of the EEC? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government are pursuing this enthusiastically?

There is no permanent secretariat for political co-operation. At present, national presidencies take it in turns to provide the necessary services, and that has been adequate so far. It is cheap and efficient, and measures have recently been taken to strengthen national presidencies by loans of staff from the preceding and succeeding presidencies.

Why should it be assumed that the people of the nations in the EEC necessarily want the same policies on foreign affairs?

It is not necessarily assumed, but practice has shown that there is a wide measure of agreement on a number of issues.

Will my right hon. Friend discuss with his EEC counterparts the effects on Europe of the SALT II agreement, and in particular article XII of that agreement? If it does not mean the non-circumvention of the treaty by the transfer or sale of strategic weapons to third countries, what does it mean?

I am in some difficulty, because I was just about to answer a substantive question from my hon. Friend on that point. I am sure that that question will be reached.

While unreservedly condemning the expulsion of people from Vietnam on ethnic grounds, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, if he believes that the Vietnamese regime is barbaric, he is insisting that these Chinese people remain in Vietnam? Why is he not persuading his colleagues at home and in other parts of the EEC to take as many of these refugees as possible in the shortest possible time?

The hon. Member is confusing two fundamental issues. Almost everybody in the House agrees that people who do not wish to remain in a country should be allowed to leave it. That is very different from a Government systematically expelling about 1 million of their own people by treating them in an intolerable manner.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what changes in the regulations governing beef and veal imports from ACP countries were made as part of the conditions attaching to renewal of the Lomé Convention.

The present regulations provide for duty-free access with a 90 per cent. levy abatement for just over 27,000 tonnes of beef and veal, the quantity being subject to annual negotiations. Under an exchange of letters to be annexed to the new convention, the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries will be entitled to export to the Community up to a fixed ceiling of 30,000 tonnes—compared with 27,000 tonnes—each year for the duration of the convention, with the same levy abatement. We welcome this modest improvement.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the United Kingdom beef and veal producers will not pay the price for the renewal of the Lomé Convention? Will he assure the House that their returns in prices will not be affected unduly by such a concession?

I give the House that assurance. The new arrangement is a modest advance. About 30,000 tonnes of beef is not a great quantity, but it will be of considerable help to Botswana, which is particularly dependent upon it.

Although it is an advantage for Botswana, which has always supplied us with cheap beef from which the British housewife has benefited, is there no way in which that country can be given a longer period to plan production in the way that it was carried out under the old Commonwealth arrangements?

There has been an improvement. The fixed ceiling is for 30,000 tonnes each year, as opposed to the quantity being reviewed annually.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is satisfied with the progress of Greek accession to the European Communities; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. An important and historic step was taken on 28 June 1979 when the Greek Parliament approved a Bill for the ratification of the Treaty of Accession. The Government warmly welcome this development. We believe that Greece's accession will enrich the Community and strengthen further the excellent relations between our two countries.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that, immediately following the ratification by the Greek Parliament of the Treaty of Accession, nearly 200 hon. Members signed an early-day motion expressing their pleasure at the decision and warmly welcoming Greece into the Community? Is he aware that the strong wish behind that early-day motion was that the Government should move with the utmost speed to introduce legislation or initiate other necessary action to ensure that Greece enters the Community as quickly as possible? Will he give the House some information on the matter?

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. He will appreciate that whatever is done in this Parliament will not delay the entry of Greece into the EEC. I assure him about that. We are considering how the accession should best be dealt with in this Parliament, and we should like to ratify as soon as possible. At the same time, we must be satisfied that the most suitable procedures are followed for parliamentary action prior to application.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say when a British Minister will go to Athens to discuss with the Greek Government the many questions of special interest to this country and to Greece that will arise out of Greece's entry into the EEC?

I hope to visit Greece before long. However, I cannot say whether I shall be the only one to do so—or, indeed, the first.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the accession of another country into the EEC will bring greater pressure to bear on the common agricultural problem in Europe? It should expedite the decision that is to be made in renegotiating the CAP.

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. However, our first priority is a reform of the EEC budget.

Will the new development assist the Greek Cypriots and the refugees in their difficulties over the loss of property?

That is another matter. That question was put down today, but the hon. Member in whose name it was tabled was not present. However, I do not believe that it is necessarily concerned with the present matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consideration he has given to continuing financial support for voluntary organisations with projects in the developing world.

I intend to continue the joint funding scheme for overseas projects carried out by British voluntary organisations.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. However, has he had time to read the report of the Select Committee on India, which shows that there is immense scope for increased effective activity by voluntary organisations in that country? Will he discuss with those organisations the means whereby they can be given additional Government support?

Yes, Sir.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept the argument that if a nation is to be judged on whether it is a member of a civilised society, one of the bench marks for that judgment is the way in which it assists those nations which are less fortunate than itself? Does he agree that the withdrawal of money from overseas aid is thoroughly reprehensible, and that it should be reinstated?

There has been no withdrawal of overseas aid. The projected amount for the current year has been reduced, but the volume of aid has been increased by 2 per cent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the most economic ways to give aid to the developing world is to channel funds through voluntary organisations? Those organisations are held in considerable respect in many countries within the developing world. Will he take the point on board to ensure that whatever money and funds are available from the Government for overseas aid will be channelled in a higher percentage through the voluntary organisations? They have the technical know-how and ability to give great assistance to those countries. I have a vested interest, and I refer particularly to the Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, which carries out valuable work in many developing countries.

My hon. Friend has stated clearly Conservative policy on the use of voluntary agencies.

Does the Minister recollect that in response to a letter from four of my hon. Friends and myself about the appalling situation in Kampuchea he said that the British Government could do virtually nothing to help because of the recognition problem? Will anything be done to help Kampuchea, through voluntary organisations?

Yes, Sir. That matter is being considered. Help will probably be provided through the Red Cross.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to help the Third world is not through increased financial support but by conducting freer trade? Will he condemn the practice by which the EEC dumps on world markets over-subsidised primary products?

I should like to look into the latter point that my hon. Friend makes.

In any consideration by the Government of financial support to voluntary organisations, will Chile be included? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the £1 million scheme run by OXFAM, Christian Aid and other charities, which was financed by his Department, to help the poorest in Chile will continue?

Yes, Sir.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask for your guidance and apologise for not giving you notice of my point of order. It may be that there is still some confusion in the House about the order of Foreign Office, EEC and Overseas Aid questions. There is some feeling of dissatisfaction. It is felt by some that the slot for Foreign Affairs questions is too short, as is also the slot for EEC questions, and that it may be possible to take Overseas Aid questions on a separate occasion. I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, now that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is in the Chamber. There is still some disquiet about these matters.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had exchanges with the Leader of the House. It is on the record that he is considering these matters sympathetically and intends shortly to make a statement. May we have some clarification?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to prolong the argument, but I feel that it is right to point out that Foreign Affairs questions deal with the world, which is a large place. Bearing in mind that questions Nos. 2, 3 and 5 were taken together and that two hon. Members were absent, we dealt with only nine questions to a Department that is concerned with the whole of the world. I urge the Front Benches to get together and to do something.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why cannot we have the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in this place instead of in the House of Lords? It is totally undemocratic that we cannot question directly the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order for my attention?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Why cannot we have the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in this place to question instead of the totally undemocratic—

Order. That is a matter for the Prime Minister and not for me.

It seems to some of us to be unfair that about 30 or 40 questions were tabled to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, to which only 25 minutes were allocated, and that less than half of them were reached while 30 minutes were allocated to EEC and overseas development questions, all of which were reached. That is not an irregular occurence. It places those who have tabled overseas development and EEC questions in a privileged position as they may be almost certain that their questions will be answered. I suggest that time is reallocated so that the EEC allocation is properly reduced.

Mr. Winston Churchill.

rose—

Order. I think that the Leader of the House is trying to catch my eye to speak and illuminate further the points of order that have been made.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for singling out my eye. These are rather complicated matters. I am trying to take into account the wishes of hon. Members and also the wishes of Ministers concerned. We are pursuing the matter, and I hope to have something to say shortly.

Questions on foreign affairs slipped in the course of the previous Parliament from once every three weeks to once every four weeks, and we have seen Question Time on foreign affairs reduced from 55 minutes to 35 minutes, and now to 25 minutes. Surely the present position is unsatisfactory.

Will you kindly confirm, Mr. Speaker, for my sake if for the sake of no others, that the EEC and the Commonwealth are part of the world and part of foreign affairs?

I am grateful for that information.