asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has plans to increase the amount of grant for the activities of the British Council above what has been already announced for the next three years; and if he will make a statement.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) on 3 July, the Government have agreed that the council's "core budget", which consists of grants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Overseas Development Administration and aid administration payments, should not fall below £38 million, at 1979 survey prices. The core budget will be gradually reduced until that level is reached by 1983–84. This represents an improvement in that year, and intervening years, which cannot be exactly quantified, but the new arrangements will give the council greater certainty in its planning.

Will my hon. Friend accept that his answer will give some encouragement to those who, like myself, believe that the British Council has been called upon to make excessive economies following a decision that failed to recognise the importance of a service that makes friends, influences people and boosts British exports? Will he ensure that the British Council is able to match the efforts of our major competitors, such as the French and the Germans, who are in no doubt about the value of national cultures abroad?

I gladly join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the British Council and its value for the country. The arrangements that I have explained represent a considerable improvement both financially and in terms of certainty. I am glad to say that they have been welcomed by the council.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable disquiet in many areas of the world that the British Council is not given enough money to do its job? Is he aware that I wrote recently to his right hon. Friend enclosing a letter from a Zambian business man who made it clear that, in his view, the Government were not doing their duty by the British Council?

I think that the letter may have been written before the new arrangements were announced. While the British Council was unhappy with the previous arrangements, it has welcomed the new ones.

With a record of achievement by the British Council that is probably unparalleled among Government agencies and, indeed, among most Governments, does my hon. Friend agree that every effort should be made to prevent the reduction of assistance to the British Council?

We have recently given this matter further thought. I agree with my hon. Friend, as I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert), about the value of the work of the British Council, but the Government took the view that in the present circumstances it could not be exempted from the Governmen's spending cuts. I believe that when my hon. Friend has studied the new arrangements he will find that they represent a considerable improvement on what was previously planned.

Is not the British Council doing a tremendous amount of work for international understanding and co-operation? People who come to this country often return home to take up high office in their Governments. How can the Government say that they cannot afford this expenditure when, yesterday, they announced the expenditure of £9 billion on arms?

That is a different matter, which was discussed by my right hon. Friend yesterday. We are satisfied that the British Council will remain an effective, vigorous and capable organ for spreading British interests abroad.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the alteration to a cut that was to some extent unexpected and, I believe, to some extent unintended, will do a great deal for the morale of the British Council personnel and enable them to continue their good work?

I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the benefits of the new arrangements is that they should greatly reduce the need for any redundancies—if, indeed, over the coming three years there have to be any redundancies at all.

Will the Minister now make clear what has so far not been clear? What is to be the size of the cut in the budget of the British Council? What was the budget programmed to be in this year, and what will be the revised figure for 1983–84? Ought he not to think a good deal further about a whole range of policies which would help this country—through overseas broadcasting services, the British Council, our diplomatic presence and help to overseas students—to increase its influence abroad?

The right hon. Gentleman will find the previously planned figures in a written answer that I gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) on 22 April. It is not possible to quantify the new figures exactly, but they could mean an improvement of about £3 million by 1983–84.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise the cause of those Soviet Jews who have applied to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics at the forthcoming Madrid review conference to review the Helsinki agreement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to ensure that the situation faced by Soviet Jews seeking to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will be on the agenda for the forthcoming Madrid review conference.

The Government will certainly press at Madrid for all signatory States, including the Soviet Union, to fulfil their commitments under the Helsinki Final Act. These include respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms

"for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion"

"in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family".

I appreciate that answer, but does the Minister agree that the Soviet Union has failed to comply with that obligation in respect of its Jewish minority, which has been harassed and persecuted more than ever, with the numbers allowed to leave having been reduced? Is he aware that within the past two days a young student in Leningrad—Grigori Geishis—has been arrested? Does he agree that this sort of behaviour causes great harm to good relations between our country and the Soviet Union?

I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is worrying that the number of Jews allowed to leave the Soviet Union this year has decreased. Last year the figure was almost 50,000. It was only 2,200 per month in April and May. That appears to be because the Soviet Union is applying a more restrictive definition to the term "kinship", and that we regret.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the suppression of cultural and religious freedoms in the Soviet Union, with the Government-inspired wave of anti-semitism, are by themselves significant betrayals of the Helsinki principles? Will he undertake to urge his Common Market friends to make the strongest possible objections to this course of action when the Madrid conference convenes?

I assure my hon. Friend that we shall take this matter up very seriously in Madrid in the light of the failure of the Soviet Union to fulfil its obligations under the Helsinki agreement.

The question of human rights is important, whether in the Soviet Union or in Israel. However, will the Minister undertake to see that the Madrid conference does not deteriorate into bickering between East and West about human rights, but is used as a platform for a more positive approach on the question of peace and disarmament, which is the only alternative open to the world?

I recognise the interest of the hon. Member in matters relating to the Soviet Union. He is a vice-president of the World Peace Council, which is a disguised instrument of Soviet policy.

Nonsense.

My hon. Friend is doing something towards world peace. What are you doing?

What action is my hon. Friend taking under the Helsinki agreement to monitor and publish Soviet action during the Olympic Games?

My hon. Friend will find set out in the answer that I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) on 2 July the position over the last six months to date. That deals with the subject fairly fully. We are continuing to monitor the Soviet performance.

I have a point of order to raise, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to interrupt Question Time. May I pursue it with you later?

Certainly. The hon. Member may do so after questions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has recently been discussion in this House and in the press concerning the raising of questions about individuals in the House, because individuals have no opportunity to make a proper reply at the time. Sometimes—I believe that it occurred today—Ministers also raise such questions, although perhaps on a reduced scale.

Order. Since I became Speaker I have always worked on the principle that if an hon. Member feels that he has been criticised he should be given a chance to explain.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your consideration. If I thought for one moment that the World Peace Council could be described in such a way, I would resign immediately. The World Peace Council has its headquarters in Helsinki. Its executive secretary is a member of the Australian Labour Party. It is financed by contributions from members throughout the world, including myself. None of the money comes from Governments. [Interruption.] If any hon. Members can prove to me that the World Peace Council receives money from, the Soviet Government, the British Government or any other Government, I shall resign my position immediately.

I allowed the hon. Gentleman to make his position quite clear. He understands that I can do no more.

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Olham, East (Mr. Lamond). Should not the Minister—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker)—withdrew his remarks.

I think that we had better move on. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Order. It is not for me to call upon the Minister to withdraw his remarks. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw".] Order. Hon. Members know that at this stage I cannot ask a Minister, or any hon. Member to withdraw a statement that was made half an hour ago, during Question Time.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It appeared to some hon. Members that the Minister wished to rise. We assumed that he was doing so in order to apologise to the House. I hope that he was doing that. It is true that I was not in the House when the Minister made his remarks. However, I hope that the Minister will rise and do the decent thing. From what we know of him, that may be expecting a bit much. I should have hoped that he would do his best to try.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I did not give the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) a fuller and longer answer. I was bearing in mind the injunction, that you had given. As for what I said about the World Peace Council, I do not withdraw a word.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what latest discussions he has had with representatives of the Warsaw Pact countries regarding the implementation of the Helsinki agreement.

Since I answered my hon. Friend's question on 18 June I have called in the Soviet Ambassador to protest at the harassment and intimidation of a number of British visitors to the Soviet Union, in breach of the Helsinki agreement. There have been meetings at official level with the Governments of Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Soviet Union is obnoxiously in breach of the Helsinki agreement's provisions for greater freedom of movement, in that no fewer than 150 persons normally resident in Great Britain, including the wife of the official attaché of the British Olympic team—it is also in breach of the Olympic spirit—have been refused visas to visit the Soviet Union during the Games?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I understand that the Soviet embassy in this country has refused to grant visas to people who do not hold British passports. That appears to us to be another example of a breach by the Soviet Union of its obligations.

Is the Minister aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome greater freedom in the Soviet Union? However, does he agree that many of those who criticise Soviet policy should understand that the King David hotel was blown up, along with many British officers and their families? Is he aware that there are other parts of the Middle East where certain people could teach the Russians methods of atrocities far beyond anything that we have seen yet from the Soviet Union?

I find the hon. Gentleman's question remote from the original question on the Order Paper.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to submit practical proposals to the Madrid conference for the establishment of a Helsinki conference commission on human rights which would be empowered to investigate and report upon discrimination and harassment on religious grounds in any or all participating States?

I am familiar with my hon. Friend's ideas on that subject. They are certainly of interest. The first task at Madrid, however, is to conduct a thorough evaluation of the extent to which the various parties to the Helsinki agreement have fulfilled or failed to fulfil their obligations.

What concrete evidence do the Government have of harassment of British citizens?

When I called in the Soviet Ambassador on 18 June I handed him a piece of paper containing details of eight cases that had been brought to my notice—

Put it in the Library.

by British subjects who had asked that their cases should be raised with the Soviet authorities. These cases had already been raised with the Soviet authorities in Moscow by our Ambassador there, but without result. I thought that it was right for me to follow up his representations.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received on the proposals on the Middle East put forward at the European Council meeting in Venice.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report on progress to follow up the initiative in the Middle East proposed at the Venice European summit.

Representations have been made to the Government from a number of quarters. Particular concern has been expressed by representatives of the Anglo-Jewish community about the reference in the European Council statement to the Palestine Liberation Organisation. We continue to believe that the statement was balanced and positive. We are currently considering with our partners the practical aspects of the contacts with the parties concerned which the Nine have undertaken to carry out.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the extent to which there is discrimination and, in some cases, an absolute prohibition, against Christianity as well as Judaism in nearly all of the States which most strongly support the PLO and which are most strongly supported by it? Does my right hon. Friend accept that this is yet another reason why there is such widespread disquiet about an initiative which appears at least to be aimed at creating a PLO-dominated State on the West Bank?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I am not certain how closely those two questions are intertwined. For one thing, the European declaration did not recommend a PLO State on the West Bank. It recommended self-determination for the Palestinians, at the same time as seeking to ensure that Israel's security was guaranteed. I think, therefore, that the statement was balanced. Although there have been some representations against it, it has been widely welcomed.

Will my right hon. Friend assure his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary that the majority of hon. Members prefer his statesmanlike approach to the problems of the Middle East to the grotesque and abusive outpourings of Mr. Begin who, with his record, should not lecture the British Government? Will he assure the House that the follow-up to the Venice communiqué, with its initiative on the Middle East, is being pursued as vigorously as possible, bearing in mind the gravity of the situation?

The initiative is being followed up in co-operation with other countries today and this week. I hope that further progress will be announced shortly. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it would be surprising if the approach of my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary were not preferred to the approach of the leader of another Government, however respected a person.

What does the Lord Privy Seal think about the fact that Mr. Yasser Arafat has flatly and contemptuously rejected the Venice declaration by saying that the Palestine question can never be settled by any political declaration or other political action, but only by military means? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is a good reward for all the work that he has done on behalf of the Palestinians?

It is regrettable that the European declaration has been rejected. It has been rejected only by the PLO, Israel and the Syrians. It was welcomed by President Sadat as balanced and constructive. Certainly any extreme claims by either side are to be regretted. We deplore the recent Fatah declaration. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that claims by Mr. Begin for sovereignity over the whole of Palestine would be equally unacceptable.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that President Sadat has said that the PLO should not be involved, under any circumstances, in the negotiations? Be that as it may, will my right hon. Friend now take some practical steps in terms of homework before the grant mission leaves for the Middle East, and ask the French Government why they are supplying nuclear fuel of weapon-making quality to the Government of Iraq? Why are the French supporting an extremely dangerous and highly sensitive position in the Middle East? Far from being a contribution to peace, it could be a contribution to the explosion of the whole of the Middle East.

That is as may be, but it has nothing to do with the European initiative from Venice. I repeat that President Sadat was well aware of the terms of the European declaration, and he described it as balanced and constructive.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us regard the declaration not only as well balanced but overdue? To continue with the exclusion of one of the most vitually concerned participants would mean that there would never be any hope of achieving peace in the Middle East.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. We deplore terrorism, from wherever it comes, in the Middle East. We have not recognised, and will not recognise, the PLO, but it is futile for anybody to deny that it enjoys a considerable measure of support among Palestinians. Therefore, it would be futile not to talk to the PLO.

What about the IRA?

The IRA does not enjoy significant support in Northern Ireland.

I understand the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), but does my right hon. Friend agree that the Israeli State is a bastion for the West in the Middle East?

We have no doubt, and are unequivocal about the fact that we are committed to the security and continuance of Israel. The Venice declaration made that clear. It is also clear that Israel will never be fully secure until the Palestinian problem is solved. That can be solved only by giving justice to the Palestinians, while ensuring the security of the Israelis.

On the question raised by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Sir H. Fraser), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the supply of arms and nuclear materials by European countries to the contestants in the Arab-Israeli dispute is a matter of major importance in the context of trying to achieve peace anywhere in the Middle East let alone the possibility of its repercussing, as it is bound to do, upon the so-called European initiative?

If it is pursuing an independent nuclear policy, Iraq is probably not the only country in the Middle East to do so. That does not arise out of this question, but if the right hon. Gentleman tables a question on the matter I shall answer it.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I propose to raise the matter on the Ajournment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he will next meet Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Muskie to discuss reduction of medium-range missiles in Europe.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to meet Mr. Gromyko and Mr. Muskie to discuss the reduction of medium-range missiles in Europe.

Will the Government now follow the example of Chancellor Schmidt, who has secured the removal of two Soviet conditions? If the Government say that they are in favour of negotiations, why are they proving the driving force in NATO for the deployment of cruise missiles?

It is true that when Chancellor Schmidt visited Russia the Russians removed one of their preconditions for the negotiations. The problem is that they substituted another condition, namely, the inclusion of United States aircraft and the exclusion of Soviet aircraft from the negotiations. Surely the hon. Gentleman would agree that that would be most inequitable. That is why we are studying the matter closely.

Will my hon. Friend confirm yet again that if SS20 missiles were not rolling off the assembly lines in Russia, aimed at Europe, at the rate of more than one a week, the question of cruise missiles for Britain would be academic?

We must take such precautions as are necessary for the defence of these islands and to deter the Soviet Union, which shows no signs of abating its increase in its military power, both conventional and nuclear.

Is the Minister aware that there is a deep and profound yearning for peace, both in Britain and throughout the world, and for the removal of the nuclear sword of Damocles from above our heads? Is it not the Government's duty to do everything that they can to bring the arms race to an end and to obtain a nuclear-free zone in Europe?

The Government would welcome opportunities for a balanced reduction in armaments. Why does the hon. Gentleman not address his remarks to the Russians? It is they who are causing us to keep up our defences.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time I asked a supplementary question to Question No. 6. At the end of his answer, the Minister—the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) asked me why I had not asked the Russians. Fortunately, Russian Ministers do not answer from the Dispatch Box. I am, therefore, not in a position to ask the Russians. Is it in order for one of her Majesty's Ministers to tell an hon. Member, who has put a reasonable, legitimate and serious question, to ask it of a foreign Power?

I can rule only on whether the reply was out of order. I do not rule on the wisdom of it. I cannot say that the Minister's reply was out of order.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise at the next meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers the testing of the French neutron bomb.

My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

In view of the Government's much vaunted claim to be close to their allies and to have some influence with them, will they reconsider their position and point out to the French that the testing of a neutron bomb is a dangerous extension of the spread of nuclear weapons, which might destabilise the present position?

The French are entitled to make their decisions. We understand why they have considered it necessary to develop the neutron bomb. We do not intend to follow their example.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is reckless and irresponsible in the extreme for a nuclear power to give weapons-grade uranium to a non-nuclear power? What representations have the Government made, or intend to make, to the French Government about the imminent delivery of 72 kg of weapons-grade uranium to Iraq?

We have no plans to do so.

That is a reply which the Minister ought deeply to regret. As well as being a member of NATO, as is France, we are a member of the International Atomic Energy Authority. Along with France and others we took part in the INFCE evaluation fuel cycle. We share all these matters with them. Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that we have no interest in this extremely important matter and have no intention of raising it with the French?

I made it clear that the decision is one for the French to take and that it is not one which the British Government can pursue.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Republic of South Korea.

We have enjoyed close and friendly relations with the Republic of Korea for many years. During my recent visit I reaffirmed the importance we attach to those relations and to our trading links. I also emphasised our strong interest in maintaining stability in the region and expressed the concern of people in this country that democratic institutions should be strengthened.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the short-term stresses which have been apparent recently should not obscure the dramatic social, political and economic advances that have been made in South Korea in the last 30 years? Does he also agree that it would be a good idea to encourage a direct air link between London and Seoul as a way of encouraging mutual understanding and trade?

I noticed that there had been remarkable economic progress in South Korea. I hope that that will be paralleled by political progress. The question of a direct air link is strictly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I hope that something will happen. Discussions have been held, and I hope that they will be resumed before long.

When the right hon. Gentleman spoke to the South Korean authorities, did he raise the issue of human, civil and democratic rights for the South Korean people? Did he make it clear that large-scale killings and brutality's against South Korean students are not representative of the concept of democracy as we see it?

I made it clear in my original answer, when I said that I "expressed the concern of people in this country that democratic institutions should be strengthened". However, for once, the hon. Gentleman has shown less than his customary fairness. He may have seen on television that the students commandeered a bus and drove straight through a police cordon, killing policemen in the process. Therefore, the violence is not all on one side.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the policy of his Department to claim diplomatic immunity on behalf of British diplomats who commit parking offences in other countries.

No, Sir. Our staff overseas are normally expected to pay any parking fines they may incur.

In that case, should not there be some reciprocity? Is the Minister aware that people, particularly in London, are getting fed up with reading about the blatant disregard of parking regulations by diplomats from a number of foreign embassies in London? What will he do about it?

Tow them away.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is fair to suggest that there should be reciprocity. Although diplomatic immunity is provided under the Vienna convention, at the same time it is laid down in article 41 that diplomats in other countries are expected to follow and obey the law of those countries. However, I should point out that parking offences by diplomats in this country have been reduced by 40 per cent. in the last two years, and that is a source of encouragement.

Although the number of offences has been reduced by 40 per cent., is not the remaining number still substantial? Is not the real purpose of diplomatic immunity to ensure that ambassadors can carry out their duties without hindrance? Is it not intolerable that junior embassy officials can act with a total lack of consideration for and courtesy towards other road users, thereby causing congestion and inconvenience to thousands of them, while sheltering behind diplomatic immunity?

That is precisely why we make strong representations to heads of mission when there is strong evidence that particular diplomats have been abusing the laws and have been committing offences, particularly with regard to parking. That is something with which we shall persist.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if there have been any recent talks between the Government, the Hong Kong Government and the Government of the People's Republic of China concerning the construction and siting of the proposed nuclear reactor plant in South China.

No, Sir. The position remains as set out in my reply to the hon. Member of 2 June.

Is the Minister aware of the grave local public concern about the proposed building of such a plant, bearing in mind the Three-Mile Island incident? Can he give an assurance that full local consultation will take place, particularly on all aspects of safety involved in such a project?

We are, of course, at a very early stage. A feasibility study is being conducted between the China Light and Power Company and the Government of Kwantung province. I have no doubt that if the feasibility study leads to plans for the construction of a nuclear power plant there will be the fullest consultation and planning by the Government of Hong Kong to make sure that their citizens are safeguarded.

Do the British Government have any responsibility for, or final say in, any such project?

We are being consulted by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, but, ultimately, as the proposal is to build a nuclear power station on the territory of China, it will be a matter for the Chinese Government to decide.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what arrangements he is making for the attendance of Government representatives at the independence celebrations of the New Hebrides on 30 July.

I expect to represent Her Majesty's Government at the independence celebrations.

Can the Minister give an assurance that the independence celebrations will go ahead on 30 July? What is being done to ensure that the pledges that were given from the Government Dispatch Box on two occasions this year—that all necessary measures will be taken to put down any problems in other islands—are being fulfilled?

We stand by the pledges that we have made. It is our intention that independence shall occur on 30 July as planned. I understand that that is also the intention of the French Government.

Can my hon. Friend say what progress is being made with the negotiations within the New Hebrides to bring Espiritu Santo within the total of the islands?

Negotiations have recently taken place. They ended yesterday, at least for a time. Our representative, and the representative of the French Government, are now on their way back to Europe. I expect to see our representative tomorrow and to receive a full report. So far, I have had only a very brief report.

We welcome the Minister's assurance that independence will be granted on 30 July, but is he aware that it is important for the New Hebrides Government to have complete control and territorial integrity? I hope that that is an undertaking which the British Government intend to support.

The hon. Lady is aware of the fact that at present one island is in a state of secession. Therefore, at present, there is not complete control. It is our objective to remedy that situation and to bring the New Hebrides to independence as one unit.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent representations have been made to South Africa regarding its defiance of the United Nations resolution over Namibia.

The Five Western Powers have told the South African Government that they support Dr. Waldheim's letter of 20 June to the South African Foreign Minister, in which Dr. Waldheim answered South Africa's questions about aspects of the arrangements for implementing the United Nations plan. The Five urged South Africa to reply positively.

Will the Government take firm action in the United Nations to end South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia? As there are now incursions into Angola, and as the situation is developing, will the Minister take steps to bring an end to this illegal regime at the earliest possible moment, by bringing strong pressure to bear on the South African Government?

That is precisely what the Group of Five nations has been working at for the last several months—to persuade the various parties to reach agreement. The sooner they do so, the better it will be for everyone concerned.

Are there any plans for direct ministerial contact with the South African Government in order to press forward this matter?

The Group of Five has its own means of contact with the South African Government, and uses it whenever it thinks it right to do so.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the occupation of South-West Africa by South Africa is not illegal, and that the South Africans were invited to go there in the first place to take over this territory? Can he also confirm that on several occasions the South African Government, together with the elected Members in South-West Africa, have agreed to arrangements made by the Western Powers and the United Nations, only to find those arrangements changed because of the intervention of SWAPO External? Does he agree that the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance is likely to be more representative of the best interests of South-West Africa than SWAPO External?

You invited us to answer only one question, Mr. Speaker, and I shall therefore choose to answer the first question. All the parties are committed to two important things: first, that there should be United Nations supervised elections; and, secondly, that there should be a demilitarised zone. Therefore, the gap is narrowing rapidly, and the sooner it is agreed upon, the better it will be for the future of the people of Namibia.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend said that he would answer my first question, but he failed to do so. My first question was whether he would confirm that South Africa—

Order. I believe that that was the Minister's way of answering the question. However, it is 3.10 pm, and we had better move on.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will specify the nature of the European Economic Community instrument that will authorise the amount of repayment to the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community budget of 1981; and which body or bodies will authorise the relevant amount.

The instruments under which payments will be made are the revised financial mechanism regulation and the regulation establishing supplementary measures in favour of the United Kingdom, drafts of which were debated by this House on 2 July. The amounts to be entered in the budget of a particular year, or in a supplementary budget, will be decided by the Council and the Parliament, acting as the budgetary authority, in the normal way. The formal adoption of the budget or supplementary budget will constitute the authority for the Commission to disburse the amounts agreed.

Within the criteria laid down by the Commission, what will be the Government's criteria for selecting the projects in the programme to be put forward, and which Government Department will put them forward to the Commission or the Council?

The projects to be put forward are still under discussion. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general categories that we have in mind. Presumably the projects will be put forward by the Foreign Office, but in conjunction with all other Departments concerned. They will not necessarily be put forward by the same Department.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether it is the Government's intention to press for an expansion of the regional and social funds? If that is his intention, how does it square with the general objective of trying to reduce the Community budget?

That is a separate point. Restructuring implies that there will be more expenditure on some aspects, and less on others.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to place on the agenda at future meetings of the Council of Foreign Ministers the need for Community action to achieve lower air fares between the member States.

The United Kingdom Government pressed successfully for agreement by the Council of Transport Ministers on 24 June on an invitation to the Commission and national experts to examine scheduled air fares within the Community as soon as possible. The reports of this study are likely to be considered by the Council by the end of this year or early in 1981. We hope that the Community can respond to the challenge of encouraging cheaper air travel between member States.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but is not the inference to be drawn from his reply that he agrees that air fares between member States in Europe are supported by an unacceptable and anachronistic cartel, and that there is now a growing public clamour for realistic air fares between European countries? If those fares were similar to internal fares within the Community, the fare between London and Paris, for instance, could be halved. The carriers may resist that process, but the demand is now inexorable and Governments are supporting it.

I think that the whole House agrees that air fares in Europe are extremely high and should be lower. It is our objective that fares should be lower, but under bilateral and multilateral agreements that have been made over the years, we are not allowed to impose cuts in existing European air fares. The agreement of the Governments of the countries concerned is necessary. Governments of both parties have resisted increases in fares over the years.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is possible to fly to Hong Kong more cheaply than it is to fly to Marseilles, and that that situation will continue until the Transport Ministers change it? In view of that, can be persuade them to agree to a programme that is a little more speedy than the leisurely one that he announced today?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but he will realise that it is not simply a question for the EEC. It affects the whole of Europe. I agree that the general situation is ridiculous.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not merely the regulation of the fare structure that is at the heart of the matter, but also the pooling arrangements that exist between carriers? If we are to get the proper competitive environment that is necessary to bring fares down, could not pooling also be carefully examined?

That is basically a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, but what my hon. Friend says sounds correct.

The problem is not simply between States, but within this particular State. The most expensive air services in the world are those between London and Edinburgh, and London and Glasgow.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is right, but he will appreciate that that is not a matter for me.

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

I expect to meet my Community colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 July. The agenda for the meeting has not yet been finalised.

With regard to the future planning of the Community, will the Lord Privy Seal explain the extent to which the Community will have power to control projects that are authorised under the scheme to refund money to those countries that are owed it? Given the fact that the refund is possible only with the approval of the Community, does that not mean that there has been a shift of power from the United Kingdom Parliament and Government to Brussels? Does he regret that trend? If he does, will he seek to reverse it in future Community planning?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. He should welcome the considerable success that we have gained in achieving a substantial reduction in the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community budget. The regulation is now being worked out, but it is not our intention—it cannot be read into the conclusions of the 29–30 May Council—that the Community should control our public expenditure projects.

When the Foreign Affairs Ministers meet, particularly to discuss political co-operation, will my right hon. Friend take account of the great unease that exists in Turkey about its position following the accession of Greece to the EEC? Will he give an undertaking that the Government will take some steps to put that unease at rest and reassure the Turks that we take full account of their position not only in relation to the Community, but also in relation to NATO?

As I think I have assured my hon. Friend in the past, I share his concern over Turkey. We regard the position of Turkey as a matter of the greatest importance, and we all welcome the recent agreement with Turkey.

Will the Lord Privy Seal explain how the Conservative Government will get round the dilemma of reclaiming some of the money, bearing in mind that during his first Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in reply to me, that if any money was forthcoming from the attempts to cut the budget, none of it would be used to cut public expenditure? How on earth can that be reconciled with the fact that, to reclaim some of this money, pound for pound will have to be spent on some projects to increase public expenditure? Should not the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister explain to the House how they will get out of that dilemma?

There is no dilemma, and the premises on which the hon. Gentleman bases his question are wrong.

It is on the record.

We are not obliged to spend pound for pound, and the Community money does not oblige the Government to spend money on projects that they would not otherwise have been expected to fund.

When my right hon. Friend meets the EEC Ministers to discuss future planning in the Community, will he ensure that the question of the closure of the border at Gibraltar is taken into consideration before Spain is allowed to accede to the Community?

My hon. Friend, who follows these matters extremely closely, will be aware that my right hon. and noble Friend met the Spanish Foreign Minister and made an agreement at Lisbon, and that the talks on the matter are still continuing. I shall be very disappointed if there is any question of the matter to which my hon. Friend refers not being settled long before Spain joins the Community.

The right hon. Gentleman may dismiss the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on the ground that some of his facts are wrong, but is it not true, nevertheless, that if the Foreign Office is to be the lead Department in deciding which projects are acceptable, it will be the Community that will decide the priorities, and it will be the Community that will decide what is acceptable? If that happens, will it not be true to say that the Government will have handed over responsibility for public expenditure to Brussels, in no uncertain terms?

No. The hon. Lady has got it just as wrong as her hon. Friend. I apologise to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) if I misunderstood him. The Foreign Office may be responsible for putting forward the projects, but obviously the Foreign Office will not be the one to decide it all. Even if that were the case, the idea that that would somehow be handing the decision over to the Commission is wrong, as the hon. Member should realise.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what constraint he anticipates the continuation of common financial responsibility for Community policies will have upon the EEC's examination of structural charges, agreed at the Foreign Affairs Council on 29 and 30 May.

The Commission has been invited to consider how the necessary structural changes in the budget can best be achieved without calling into question the common financial responsibility for Community policies. It is to bear in mind the agreed aim of preventing the recurrence of unacceptable situations for any member State.

In the light of that answer, will the Lord Privy Seal now acknowledge that when, on 2 June, he told the House that the EEC had agreed that there should be a fundamental restructuring of the Community budget he got it wrong and that he misled the House, because the only thing that was agreed at Venice was a review of the budget structures, without tackling the fundamental problems of the budget, which are both the own resources system and the common agricultural policy?

Some Labour Members are a bit free in their allegations about misleading the House. In no way have I misled the House. It is common knowledge that it was agreed at that Council that there should be a restructuring of the budget. If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to read the speeches of Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard recently, he will see that they also agreed.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a common energy policy would be of value to this country, which has coal, gas and oil, and whose coal miners need protection? Would it not be appropriate to demand a levy on imported natural gas from the Mediterranean and from North Africa, as well as from the Middle East via the Soviet Union?

My hon. Friend has put forward some interesting ideas. He will be aware that the Commission has proposed a combination of energy, price and tax harmonisation, and a programme of investment in energy, financed by a system of energy taxation, possibly combining an oil import levy with an oil production tax. There are many ideas floating around. The Commission has put its proposals forward and we are studying them carefully.

Are the British Government to put forward their own proposals for the way in which these structural changes should be made, or are they to sit back and wait for the Commission to do so?

No. Obviously, there will be a period of intensive discussion between all members of the Community.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that, whatever the outcome of these negotiations, the voice of the Community will not be weakened in forming a unified policy to deal with the threat to the British footwear and textile trades from cheap and underpriced imports?

Yes, I give my hon. Friend that assurance.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects Spain to become a member of the EEC.

It should be possible for Spain to join the Community in 1983, as the Spaniards wish.

Does my right hon. Friend expect France to drag her feet about Spain's entry to the Community because she will expect Spain's demands on the common agricultural policy to be pitched at an intolerable level? Conversely, should not we be pressing strongly for the entry of Spain, both because she is now a European democracy and because her accession to the Community will make a fundamental reform of the CAP inevitable?

It is not for me to speculate about the actions of the French Government. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about Spanish democracy. What he said about the CAP implies that the restructuring that we have envisaged as taking place in 1981–82 will not by that stage have taken place. If it has not, the point that he put will apply strongly.

Will not the restructing of the CAP and the entry of Spain make a fundamental reappraisal of the CAP vital? We are already seeing rather distressing scenes on the Franco-Spanish border. Can the right hon. Gentleman say how he envisages this anomalous position being rectified?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in this House have both long been in favour of reform of the CAP, but this is not the occasion for me to put forward comprehensive proposals for its reform.

I support the accession of Spain to the European Community and share my right hon. Friend's hopes that the blockade of Gibraltar will have been lifted long before 1983, the date to which he referred, but does he agree that British opinion could not accept the accession of Spain to the EEC if coercive measures were still in force against Gibraltar? Will he make that plain to the Spanish Government?

My right hon. Friend may be aware that I said last year when I was in Gibraltar—and also subsequently to a Spanish Minister—that I thought that a closed frontier between two members of the Community was unthinkable.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that it is the Government's policy to welcome the accession not just of Spain but of Greece and Portugal? Will he without anticipating what the French might do, tell us what the British Government will do if there is any backsliding in the French or German attitude to the accession of those three countries?

We have made our attitude plain. In welcoming the proposed accession of Spain I did not mean to imply that we were not equally in favour of the accession of Greece and Portugal. We most certainly are.

In the light of early-day motion 756, does my right hon. Friend agree that such accessions may well be politically a good thing, but economically a bad thing?

I think that it is generally agreed in the House that, as my hon. Friend says, politically they are undoubtedly a good thing. If my hon. Friend is thinking of the budgetary cost to this country, I should point out that the accesion of Greece was taken into account in the new budgetary arrangements for the United Kingdom.

Clearly, the Gibraltar question must be settled, but will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the timetable for negotiations for opening up communications between Gibraltar and Spain has been delayed as from the time when he made his statement in the House? If so, can he tell us the reasons for it?

It has been delayed in the sense that, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember, we had hoped that the preliminary negotiations would be completed by the beginning of June. We had hoped, therefore, that the frontiers would be open by now. There has been delay. We are still in discussion with the Spanish Government, and I hope that the restrictions will be lifted before long.

My right hon. Friend gave an assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) about the textile and footwear industries. Is he aware that the accession of Greece, Spain and perhaps of Portugal could sound the death knell for one of our most important and strategic industries? What will he do about that?

My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a safeguard clause in the arrangements for the accession of Greece, and we envisage similar arrangements for Portugal and Spain.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Spanish fishing fleet is interested in gaining access to European Community waters? What consideration is being given to the protection of British interests during the current discussions on the common fisheries policy?

There will be a Fisheries Council meeting next week, and we are engaged in discussions with our partners over the common Fisheries policy. We hope that an agreement will be reached by the end of the year. Therefore, the question of Spanish interests has not arisen.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to Question Time, and the balance between questions on foreign affairs and those on the EEC? If I am right, 13 questions out of the 46 questions tabled on foreign affairs were answered. That is less than one-third. However, 100 per cent. of the questions on the EEC were answered. Might it not be to the benefit of the House if we were to change that proportion?

I believe that the proportion has been changed at the request of other hon. Members. The fact that only 13 questions on foreign affairs were answered is no indication of what happened. Every time that I moved on, several hon. Members rose to their feet seeking to be called.