asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will recommend to the Lord Chancellor that papers relating to the imposition of oil sanctions on Rhodesia during the period of illegal government should be released under section 5(1) of the Public Records Act 1958.

No, Sir. It is not the practice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to release official papers less than 30 years old.

The lamentable amnesty for sanction busters announced by the Attorney-General on 19 December 1979 makes it clear that no one risks prosecution if his traitorous and illegal activities are revealed. Why do the Government persist in covering up this information when it would be useful in future to know who was involved in these operations and what they were doing, bearing in mind that the Government are committed to the likelihood of mandatory sanctions against South Africa?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it was wrong to create an amnesty when it was right to create amnesties in so many other areas as part of the spirit of reconciliation in the new Zimbabwe. We decided that it was not in the public interest to disclose these documents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) was, if not actually activated by malice, not meant to be helpful? Does he agree that the fiasco of oil sanctions should be left in a decent privacy and that no good purpose will be served by raking over these dead embers?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that there is no point in raking over the past.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report on the progress of the European initiative in the Middle East.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the Middle East.

The Dutch Presidency of the 10 is about to undertake further contacts with all the parties to explore the practical implications of the principles set out in the Venice declaration and the possibilities for progress. The 10 remain determined to work actively for a comprehensive settlement providing justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that earlier this month a delegation from both sides of the House visited the Lebanon, Jordan and the West Bank, and that we had three very distinct impressions—one was that the PLO is representative of the vast majority of Palestinians, secondly, that there is no such thing as a Jordanian option and the Jordanian Government and King believe that the Palestinians must negotiate their own future and, thirdly, there is great hope for the European initiative, and that the moderate elements in the PLO, who are certainly in the ascendency at the moment, will find their position weakened if there is a long delay in bringing forward the peace process?

I am sure that the House will agree with my hon. Friend that the greater the speed the better. The Dutch President, Mr. van der Klaauw, will be shortly going to the Middle East. It is generally accepted that the PLO represents a great many Palestinians. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Jordanian option, as it is often called, is not an option. When I was in the Middle East at about the same time as my hon. Friend, King Hussein made that clear to me.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the welcome recently voiced by President Sadat to a greater European involvement in the peace-making process facilitates the speeding up of the European initiative? Does he accept that top level meetings with the PLO leadership soon would encourage the American Administration to follow suit?

We welcomed greatly President Sadat's speech at Luxembourg, in which he welcomed the European initiative and called for mutual recognition of Palestinians and Israelis.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many of us who have been closely associated over the years with supporting the rights of Israel to have secure borders feel that the time has come when Israel should be prepared to discuss the problems with the Palestinians? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the PLO must make a clear declaration that it accepts the security of Israel's borders and accepts that Israel is a State and is able to live in peace in the Middle East?

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. The recognition of the Palestinian rights of determination and withdrawal by the Israelis to the 1967 boundaries must be balanced by the Palestinians' recognition of Israel.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that while the PLO refuses to recognise the existence of the State of Israel it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to recognise the PLO?

That is not the point. As I have said and as President Sadat said, we favour mutual recognition, and recognise States, not organisations. Therefore, there is no question of official recognition of the PLO.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that a just peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a major stabilising factor in the Middle East and would help towards the recovery of the whole of the Western world? Does he agree that the first major step in that direction would be a recognition of the PLO?

I agree with everything but the last phrase of the hon. Gentleman. It would be a major step forward and a great force for stabilisation of the Middle East, but, for the reason that I have just given to my hon. Friend, we cannot recognise the PLO.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that any effective European initiative must include strong representations from the United States Government over the Israeli Government's settlement policy? Will my right hon. Friend further agree that that policy is against international law and deserves to be condemned?

As my hon. Friend knows we have always made our position clear. That does not differ from the position of the Labour Government that the Israeli settlements are illegal and an obstacle to peace. We regret particularly the speeding up of the settlement in the last month of that Government.

In connection with that, has the Lord Privy Seal made representations to the Israeli Government about the reports that in recent weeks they have seized 55,000 acres of land on the West Bank? Does he regard that as being not conducive to the compromises which are essential if peace is to be reached in the Middle East? If he has made representations, what has been the response from the Israeli Government?

The Israeli Government well know our views on their settlement policy and, a fortiori, they know our views about the speeding up of settlement. When I was in Jordan, Prince Hassan said that the Israelis had taken legal title to about 38 per cent, of the West Bank. That is a frightening figure.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will ensure that the five Western nations play a more active role in bringing South-West Africa, Namibia, to independence.

Following the pre-implementation meeting in Geneva last month, there is a need for a period of reflection by all the parties. We must not abandon the area of agreement already secured. Among other things, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will discuss Namibia with the United States Administration in Washington next week.

Is it not time that the Five showed more clearly that they are concerned about the future of the majority of citizens of Namibia and a little less concerned about the minority of SWAPO? To that end, will he and his colleagues do their best to ensure that no action is taken by any of the parties at the Geneva conference that will pre-empt a negotiated settlement in the area?

On the last point, I endorse the views expressed by my hon. Friend that any action taken by any of the parties to the dispute that hinders or makes a negotiated settlement more difficult will be most destructive and unhelpful.

Does the Minister agree that the deep penetration by South African forces into the territory of Angola and Mozambique is not conducive to prospects for a peaceful settlement? Will he confirm the report by the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph that recently the Foreign Secretary, in discussions with Mr. Chissano—Mozambique's Foreign Minister—said that he did not exclude the possibility that, in certain circumstances, Britain might support sanctions against South Africa?

Violence instigated from whatever source is not conducive to a settlement. I have already made that point. Our views on sanctions are already known and have been repeatedly made over many months, namely, that in general, we do not believe that sanctions will produce the result that we all wish to see—a peaceful settlement in Namibia.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance came out of the Geneva conference with a greatly enhanced image of being genuinely concerned about the democratic evolution of the country? Will he agree further that, instead of the United Nations supervising free and fair elections in Namibia, it may be sensible for a number of other members of the United Nations separately to supervise and monitor free and fair elections in Namibia—for example, the United States, Kenya, Angola itself, the United Kingdom and Canada?

If the British Government and the Five are to maintain the posture that all the parties should be treated equally, it would not be right for me to comment on the behaviour or standing of any party in Geneva. On the second point, we have continued fully to support the principles behind the United Nations plan that there must be an end to bloodshed, there must be free and fair elections and a settlement that is recognised internationally. As I said earlier, there must be a pause for reflection now that the new United States Administration has been established. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be having discussions with the Reagan Administration next week. I am sure that all the parties, including the United States, will be anxious to find ways to move forward.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is unlikely to be much movement by the Five until after the presidential elections in France have been completed? Will he say what representations have been made to Zambia and Angola to secure the release of the SWAPO and CANU dissidents who would like to return to play a full part in the political life of Namibia?

The French elections may be a factor, but elections are also taking place elsewhere, including in South Africa at the end of April. That must also be a factor. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's other point, if he gives me the details I shall look into the matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he is making to President Reagan and General Haig regarding their statement on East-West relations and arms increases, so far as it affects the position of the United Kingdom.

None, Sir. The Government fully share the concern expressed by President Reagan and General Haig about the need for a strong and united Western Alliance.

Is the Minister aware of the growing view that every time Mr. Reagan opens his mouth the world trembles and that his "get tough" policy is putting Britain in increasing danger? Will he press Mr. Reagan and General Haig to ratify the SALT II agreement, to drop their bellicose talk, and to adopt a more sensible attitude towards East-West relations?

I believe that a robust posture by the West towards the Soviet Union is more likely to secure peace than a weak posture. President Reagan has made it clear that while he is not committed to a timetable concerning the SALT II agreement he is willing to enter into negotiations with the Russians on the basis of trying to effect a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. We welcome that.

On the question of arms increases, what is the current state of play of the French and Polish proposals for a European disarmament conference, currently under discussion at Madrid? Is it not extraordinary that the Soviet Union appears to be so keen on endless disarmament conferences, and so reluctant to do anything about disarmament itself?

The French and Polish proposals are still under discussion at Madrid, but not much progress has been made in securing an agreement. As my hon. Friend knows, the French proposal—which we support—calls for mandatory and verifiable confidence-building measures up to the Urals, whereas the Polish proposals appear to call for declaratory statements in favour of peace and against war. We think that that is an odd position in the light of the recent Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Does the Minister recall the special session of the United Nations on disarmament, and the brave words and solemn pledges given by the United Kingdom Government? Does he feel that this Government are bound in any way by those pledges? If so, how does he reconcile those promises with the boasts of the Secretary of State for Defence from the Dispatch Box yesterday that defence spending would be increased by 8 per cent, this year and next year? How does he reconcile those promises with the words uttered both in the United States and in Britain against the Soviet Union?

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman has correctly quoted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Perhaps he could verify that. We continue to favour arms control and disarmament. We are taking part in negotiations in a number of forums. We do not believe that it helps to disarm unilaterally before arms control negotiations take place.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the future of Gibraltar.

The British Government's commitment to the people of Gibraltar, as set out in the preamble to the constitution, remains firm. It is our hope that the new Spanish Government will act on the agreement which my right hon. and noble Friend concluded with the Spanish Foreign Minister in Lisbon on 10 April 1980. It provides for the restoration of direct communications between Gibraltar and Spain and the opening of negotiations.

Having regard to the referendum—which shows that nearly every Gibraltarian wants his citizenship preserved—will my right hon. Friend consult the Home secretary and ensure that that small, but very loyal, group of British citizens is not done down by current nationality legislation?

I shall bring my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I know that my hon. Friend takes a deep interest in the matter. The British Nationality Bill is presently before the House. It is a matter for the Home Office.

Is it not time that the Lord Privy Seal stopped expressing hope about the Lisbon agreement and began to put pressure on the Spanish authorities? Why do not the Government say to the Spanish Government that, unless and until the Lisbon agreement is fulfilled, progress on the Spanish application to join the EEC will be very slow?

I do not think that that would be a helpful way to proceed. As for bringing pressure to bear on the Spanish Government, the right hon. Gentleman knows that there has not been one recently, so his proposal would not be very sensible.

If it is the Government's wish that Gibraltar should remain a dependency of the United Kingdom for as far ahead as we can see, what do the Government think about enabling Gibraltar to have some say in the institutions of the Community?

That question is rather premature. In spite of what has been said, we are hoping for, and working towards, the implementation of the Lisbon agreement. Only after that agreement has been reached can we consider matters further ahead.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the current state of United Kingdom relations with South Africa.

We have normal diplomatic relations with South Africa. The Government's view has always been that dialogue and contact provide a more constructive basis for our relations with South Africa than do ostracism and isolation. A significant element is the importance we attach to an internationally recognised settlement in Namibia and to peaceful change in South Africa towards a Government based on the consent of all their peoples.

Can my hon. Friend confirm the impression held by most of us that the reported statement by the Foreign Secretary to the Foreign Minister of Mozambique that the Government had not ruled out sanctions against South Africa was only a diplomatic ploy? Will he confirm that, should the question of sanctions come before the United Nations, the Government would not hesitate to use the veto?

I can only reiterate the view that the Government have taken from the time that they took office in May 1979. We do not think that the imposition of sanctions is a constructive way to tackle the problem. Neither independence for Namibia, nor the creation of a so-called just society in South Africa, would be advanced by measures designed to drive South Africa into isolation.

Bearing in mind that the Government, with other Western Allies, have discouraged discussion of Namibia in the United Nations and have prevented sanctions resolutions from being passed, do not the Government feel let down by the South African Government because of the failure of the Geneva conference to reach agreement? Is it not clear that the Government trusted South Africa to deliver the goods and to achieve a ceasefire? What will the Government do now that their trust has been so badly misplaced?

I have already tried to answer a number of questions about Namibia. I have made it absolutely plain that we must consider a number of factors. The Administrator-General for South Africa made it plain at the Geneva conference that he thought it premature to reach a final agreement. Elections are to be held in South Africa at the end of April. The American Administration must have time to assess the position in South Africa as a whole. The five Western nations will keep in touch. Therefore, this is a sensible time to pause and to reflect how best to move forward.

As the United States, France and Britain are deploying forces in the Indian Ocean on what appears to be a long-term basis, and as the southern exit of the Red Sea is under Soviet control from both the Ethiopian and the Aden sides, is it not becoming urgent that we should re-establish relations with South Africa in respect of naval intelligence, access to South African ports, and the provision of security for the South African coastline? If we do not do so, we shall endanger the lives of both our men and our ships.

There is no doubting the strategic importance of the South Atlantic, the Indian Ocean and the Cape route. My right hon. Friend is fully aware of our obligations under the mandatory United Nations arms embargo. We do not think that it is in the wider interest for Britain to have military collaboration with South Africa. Having said that, there are contingency arrangements whereby NATO nations could, and would, co-ordinate to provide naval control and protection of friendly merchant shipping outside the NATO area, including the South Atlantic, in times of tension and war.

Is the Minister aware that the Opposition endorse the recent forthright condemnation of activities in South Africa by the Dutch Presidency of the EEC? When the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary visit Washington, will they make it clear to the new Administration that we expect a harder line to be taken towards South Africa than has been apparent from statements made during the election campaign? Will they point out to President Reagan that it is not in the interests of the West to support tyranny and repression, whether in South Africa, El Salvador or anywhere else?

I am sure that the minds of the Prime Minister, President Reagan and the Secretaries of State will, in a constructive sense, be looking at the picture of South Africa to see how Britain, the United States and the West can best contribute towards bringing about a peaceful settlement and stability in that part of the world. I am sure that their minds will be concentrated on that question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he expects Turkey to continue to be represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

It is for the Parliamentary Assembly to decide on the validity of the credentials of the parliamentary representatives of member countries of the Council of Europe.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that the resumption of the character of democracy, and the future of full international involvement of Turkey, would be assisted by Turkey's early withdrawal rather than the inevitable expulsion that would otherwise occur? Expulsion would be justified, but difficulties might occur as a result.

It is not for me to judge that. However, with regard to the admittedly not very complicated matter of Greece, there was a long interval before expulsion. I understand that Turkey may withdraw from the Parliamentary Assembly, which is its right.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the stability of Turkey is vital to the Western Alliance, that the Council of Europe has already accepted that Turkey should remain in the Council of Europe and that the European Parliament has agreed that links should be maintained until democracy has been restored?

I agree with all that my hon. Friend has said. We welcome General Evren's announcement that a constituent assembly will be re-convened in the autumn. We note the virtual unanimity of Turkish opinion, which was reported in the delegation of the Council of Europe, but the process of restoring democracy cannot be pushed too fast.

What confidence can the Lord Privy Seal have in the restoration of the assembly and democracy in Turkey, in the light of recent events, particularly when members of the Council of Europe, and others, who are in prison at the moment, as well as leading democrats and leading trade union officials, are also being denied their basic rights? How can the Lord Privy Seal say with confidence that there is to be a return to the conditions which he says are likely to come into effect in the autumn?

It is relevant to remember that on two previous occasions the Turkish Army have returned the Government to civilian democratic rule. We noted what General Evren has said and we have noted the character of the present Administration, which is not fairly portrayed by the hon. Member.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise in the United Nations as a threat to world peace the aggression by South Africa against Mozambique.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise in the United Nations as a threat to world peace the recent and continuing violations of the territorial integrity of Angola and Mozambique by South Africa.

No, Sir. This is for the Governments directly concerned. We deplore violence from any quarter in the search for solutions to the problems of Southern Africa. Raids into Angola are a symptom of the Namibia conflict to the peaceful settlement of which we and other Governments continue to devote our efforts.

Bearing in mind that there is a United Nations resolution on South African aggression in Angola, saying that if that aggression continued anywhere, it would take action, and bearing in mind that my question was about Mozambique and not Angola, does not the Minister believe that if the Government take the attitude that they would probably veto any suggested action by the United Nations, that is giving South Africa carte blanche to behave as it wishes?

I can only reiterate that our minds must be constructive on how we can best bring about peace in that part of the world. I have already made it plain that the Government believe that the general imposition of sanctions does not and is not likely to contribute to a peaceful settlement. Our minds should be on that. With regard to raids into one country or another, we wholly condemn acts of violence, from whatever source they come.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the invasions of both Angola and Mozambique are part of a sustained campaign against those countries? Is he not aware that it seems likely that the South African Prime Minister is trying to buy an election victory with the blood of innocent South African people in Mozambique and Angola? How can he say that the peace and stability of South Africa can be enhanced when it flouts all international opinion and carries on in the way it has done?

I reiterate that it is argued, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that any acts of violence are not conducive to bringing about peace in that part of the world. We wholly and strongly condemn them.

Is it not a fact that there have been continuous raids from Angola into Ovamboland, and from Mozambique to Kwa Zulu, including the murder of many prominent men in Ovamboland and people like Chief Kapuuo? Will he ask the hon. Lady if she will consult her friends in Havana and Moscow and ask them to desist from these threats to peace?

Violence is coming from all sources. That is why it is urgent that we should work as hard as possible for a negotiated settlement.

Does the Minister recognise that the issue is not simply that acts of violence are not conducive to peace but that incursions into Angola and Mozambique are a flagrant violation of the United Nations Charter? Does he recognise that as signatories and members of the Security Council we have a peculiar responsibility for ensuring that such violations do not occur?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that sort of violence is to be deplored, but it is up to the countries concerned to decide. He referred to Angola and Mozambique. It is up to those countries to decide what measures they wish to take. Surely that is the point of having independent countries.

Would not the departure of many thousands of Cuban troops from Angola be a notable contribution to the peace of that area?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. There is no shadow of doubt that whether we are talking about Southern Africa or the Horn of Africa, the intrusion of the Soviet Union and her satellites, from whatever source, is wholly destructive.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on any progress made at the re-convened Madrid conference set up to review the Helsinki agreements.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further steps he proposes to take to encourage observance of the provisions of the Helsinki accord.

At Madrid, we and our partners in the European Community have tabled proposals seeking commitments from participating States on human rights, European security, freedom of movement, information and family reunification. I hope that it will be possible to reach agreement on these and a limited number of other substantive measures of benefit to all.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it still the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the human rights issues, such as civil freedoms and the freedom of a citizen to leave a country, are to be linked to any matters concerning arms control or disarmament? Relevant to that, are the Russian Government still insisting upon the agreement for a disarmament conference as a precondition for any further review conference?

There is no direct link between the various matters mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, we believe that it would be right that progress should be made in all the baskets—on human rights, trade, family reunification and security. The Russians are still sticking to their proposal for a conference on detente and disarmament, but at present they are not linking that to a refusal to attend a further, follow-up conference. They are committed to a further conference by the arrangements made at the beginning of the Madrid conference.

Does the Minister agree that an additional step that could be taken would be for British Ministers to harp persistently on the necessity to release members of the Soviet monitoring committee of the Helsinki agreement, including Professor Orlov? Does he not agree that the Russians should be incessantly reminded that when campaigners for human rights can speak at liberty, there will be a great improvement in international relations?

I agree with what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. We have taken the lead in talking about that subject. One of the proposals of which we are joint sponsors relates to that matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at this moment Vaclav Havel, an internationally respected playwright, and others are in prison in Czechoslovakia for doing no more than criticising their Government for not observing the spirit and letter of the Helsinki accord, which that Government signed? What justification can there be for engaging in talks in Madrid, in the face of such contemptuous defiance of the Helsinki accord by Moscow's puppets?

I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. I know of the personal interest which he has taken in the important case of Vaclav Havel and of the efforts he has made, in conjunction with a number of distinguished people to draw that case to the attention of the world. We have expressly proposed at Madrid that there should be a new agreement, reaffirming the right of people to monitor the performance by their Government of the obligations which they assumed at Helsinki.

Will the Minister take this opportunity, which he missed in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), to confirm that the Government want SALT II to be ratified and want us to move on to a SALT III agreement?

We have not changed our position.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the West should not further discuss the possibility of undertaking solemn and binding promises on detente or disarmament until such time as the Soviet Union agrees to implement the original Helsinki accord?

Yes. That is why we take the view that for the Madrid conference to subscribe to declarations that are not binding, such as those which I understand are contemplated in the Polish proposal for a conference on detente and disarmament, would be unrealistic. They would be particularly unrealistic when only just over a year ago the Soviet Union, in breach of its obligations under the United Nations charter, invaded Afghanistan.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what initiatives he is proposing to take to achieve closer co-operation with his European Economic Community colleagues in foreign policy; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and noble Friend has made a number of suggestions for the strengthening of foreign policy co-operation. I refer my hon. Friend to the speech made at the Ubersee club in Hamburg, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

What progress has been made towards setting up a permanent secretariat attached to the Council of Ministers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a secretariat would contribute to and facilitate Community foreign policies?

As my hon. Friend knows, that suggestion has been made, but I do not want to anticipate any decisions of the Foreign Ministers. We favour additional support for the Presidency, possibly by a small team of officers seconded from national diplomatic services, although we want to avoid creating a new bureaucracy. We are interested in our partners' views.

Will Her Majesty's Government support the initiative of the Bonn Government to promote a broadly based conference of all parties in the civil war in El Salvador to try to bring that tragic conflict to an end? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some danger of the American Government pre-empting action, which would be greatly to the disadvantage of Europe and the Alliance as a whole?

E1 Salvador was briefly discussed in our political co-operation yesterday. Ambassador Eagleburger is at present visiting several capitals in Europe to discuss the matter. He is coming to see me tomorrow. It was agreed yesterday that any decisions on action by the Community should wait until we have heard his views.

What is the outcome of the EEC-Japan trade discussions in the context of co-operation on foreign policy, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade told me that he would be in a position to give that reply today?

We had a long and satisfactory discussion yesterday in which it was agreed that there should be surveillance of certain Japanese imports, namely, cars, television sets, tubes and certain machine tools. The unsatisfactory nature of the Japanese response to previous representations should be brought home to them. The Commission should not only monitor what is happening but should pursue the matter in further contact with the Japanese.

In arriving at a decision on El Salvador to put before our EEC colleagues, will the Minister bear in mind that many people in this country are horrified by the moral and milittary support of the miliary junta with its appalling record of murder, political assassination and terror? Should we not be seen not to have double standards?

None of us should have double standards. It is equally important for us to wait to hear what the American Government have to say. There has been disagreeable violence by both sides in E1 Salvador.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress there has been towards reform of European Economic Community institutions.

The committee of three wise men made a number of proposals calculated to improve the functioning of Community institutions in its report, which was submitted to the European Council. The report was broadly endorsed, and those proposals that were agreed will be implemented.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that many of those institutions are beyond reform and operate against the interests of Britain and the British people? As the overwhelming majority of the public have decided that enough is enough, will he begin the essential process of removing us from the clutches of the EEC?

I do not agree with either point. The European institutions do not work against the interests of this country or Europe. Neither do I agree that the British people have come to the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman alleges.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the main institution that damages our interests is the Labour Party? Does he also agree that the institutions need improving and that if the CAP can be reformed and real co-operation established between the institutions to get the Community moving ahead on essential progress we should be getting somewhere?

Reform of the CAP is one of our objectives. There are later questions down about the matter.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what objectives he has set for the United Kingdom Presidency of the European Community due to begin on 1 July.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 12 February in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), the Government's general objective during our Presidency will be to manage business efficiently and to contribute to the development of practical and constructive policies in the Community. It is too early to say what specific objectives we shall have, but one of our main aims will be to ensure that the Community tackles effectively the restructuring of the Community budget under the agreement of May 1980.

Since it can be taken for granted that the Foreign Secretary will continue the successful exploitation of British membership in order to strengthen the influence of British foreign policy in the world, can my right hon. Friend turn his attention to the importance of trying to evolve common policies to supplement the CAP, notably a common industrial policy to create new jobs in Europe along the lines set out in the excellent pamphlet recently produced by the European Democratic Group?

I wholly agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. However industrial matters are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. In conformity with what my hon. Friend says, it always has been one of our aims to redress the balance of Community expenditure away from agriculture and towards the non-agricultural sectors, which would be of great benefit to the United Kingdom. That was one drift of the report to which he refers.

Is not the main duty of the Presidency in the Council of Ministers to seek a compromise between conflicting interests? Is there therefore not likely to be a conflict of interests between our Presidency and any attempt by the British Government to seek fundamental reforms? Therefore, does not the Minister agree that at the end of the day all that we shall have done is to sacrifice British interests in order to secure a spurious diplomatic victory?

I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's prophesying is any better based than his logic. There is no reason why our Presidency should act against the interests of this country. He is right in one way—the Community proceeds by consensus. It is for the Presidency to lead and to seek consensus.

In view of the problems for our manufacturing industry caused by the gyrations on the foreign exchanges in recent months, will my right hon. Friend suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one proposal that we should advance during our Presidency is that the pound should become a member of the EMS?

I shall pass on my hon. Friend's view.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the European Parliament venturing into debate and bilateral discussions on areas that are more properly within the competence of national Parliaments? What action will he take during his Presidency or elsewhere to indicate our displeasure?

With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I am not sure that I feel the displeasure that he ascribes to me. As parliamentarians, we are surely in favour of debate in Parliament. I do not know to which subject the hon. Gentleman refers, but I have not noticed the European Parliament going beyond its remit in this sphere.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to work towards a standardisation of passports for European Economic Community member States.

In 1974, the European Community Heads of Government decided in principle that the national passports of the Nine—now Ten—should have a common format to demonstrate the links between them as members of the Community. Discussions on the implementation of this decision are continuing in Brussels.

Is my right hon. Friend saying that if a common format passport scheme were adopted the EEC would be responsible for issuing British passports? If he supports the adoption of such a scheme, does he also support the recommendation by the international civil aviation organisations that such passports should be in laminated form so as to be capable of being read by machines?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "No". Passports in a common format will be national passports, not Community passports, and their issue will remain a national prerogative. On the second part of the question, we are very interested in machine readability. We are carrying out investigations into the most suitable system, and we shall then take a decision in the light of those investigations.

In view of the introduction of the detested Nationality Bill by the Tory Government, is the Minister happy about the idea that, with a common passport, all those other coloured people, not in the Commonwealth, but emanating from Africa, Algeria and various other areas associated with some of the Common Market countries, will more easily be able to enter this country? Is he quite satisfied with that?

I do not think that I quite follow the drift of the hon. Gentleman's question. In so far as I followed it at all, I do not think that any of his premises were remotely correct.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the vast majority of British people do not wish to abandon their British passport, which alone is able to defend them, and that the EEC does not have a Foreign Office, nor does it have any armed services, nor even a gunboat?

I think that my hon. Friend has misunderstood what is proposed and what was agreed in 1974. It would still be a British passport, and would retain such well-known characteristic features as the Royal coat of arms on the front and the exhortation inside the front cover.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to review the integration of Greece into the European Economic Community.

It is, I think, a little soon to be reviewing progress. Integration will be a gradual process taking place over five years or more. But as members the Greeks play a full part in Council meetings and all Community work.

Can the Minister assure the House that during that five-year period the EEC will be poised to take rapid action, should there be economic disruption by exports, particularly of clothing and textiles, from Greece to this country? In view of the massive lobby last Monday by clothing, footwear and textile workers who are worried sick about the continued loss of jobs, does he realise that if the EEC does not take action, this will convince many workers that association with and membership of the EEC has meant for them a continuing loss of jobs?

I think that the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is not justified at all. As I believe I have assured him on more than one occasion before, Greece's Treaty of Accession contains adequate safeguard provisions on trade. If anything goes wrong, the Community will act. I have given the hon. Gentleman that assurance before.

Will my right hon. Friend use the accession of Greece, combined with our Presidency later in the year, to take firm steps to resolve the multi-language problem, there now being seven languages, and to institute action to move to two languages, namely, French and English? Will he use that, in turn, as a possible way to influence the French to one siting of the Parliament as well?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that the two things are connected. I should be very bold indeed if I undertook to the House to cut down the number of Community languages from seven to two.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in seeking to achieve reforms in the structure and policies of the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress Mer Majesty's Government has made in the reform of the European Economic Community.

The agreement reached on 30 May 1980 which limited Britain's net contribution to the budget was a first step towards more comprehensive changes. The commitment which we secured on 30 May was to an examination of Community policies, aimed at preventing the recurrence of unacceptable situations. This provides a major opportunity to achieve structural reforms. The Commission is to submit proposals by the end of June 1981 and in the meantime we have been continuing informal contacts with the Commission and with our Community partners.

On the subject of the agreement, is the Minister aware that, of the £470 million due to Britain in rebates for projects by 31 March, which is only six weeks away, by yesterday only £157 million had been paid, according to a Written Answer that I had from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? What action will the Government take if those rebates are delayed, as is threatened, by a senior minister in the German Government?

We have recently received some £210 million under the financial mechanism in January and a further £60 million under the supplementary measures scheme. We had received £98 million in December. A further charge of some £300 million under the supplementary measures scheme is expected before 31 March. I have no reason whatever to believe that those refunds will not be here on time.

Does the Minister agree that necessary reforms in European Community policies include the more effective development of such common policies as regional development and social development?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That has long been our policy.

But have the British Government yet put forward specific proposals for the reform of the common agricultural policy?

No, we have not, because I do not think that that is the right way to go about it. I am aware of the right hon. Gentleman's well-known views on this subject. The fact is that the Commission will put forward proposals. Clearly, we feed in our ideas to everybody concerned, but just to put forward comprehensive proposals would not be the right way to achieve our interest.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in seeking to review policies within the EEC it would be very helpful if the EEC as a whole could play a greater part in resolving the problems of the Middle East and the establishment of a Palestinian State? Will he ensure that the EEC and each country within it co-operate in order to bring pressure upon the United States, which is the linchpin in maintaining the State of Israel in occupation of territories that it took over in the 1967 war?

We were discussing these matters earlier. My hon. Friend will be aware of the European initiative and the Venice declarations. The Dutch Presidency is pressing on with that initiative. Mr. van der Klaauw will be leaving for the Middle East in a few days' time. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this question.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that the budget compromise of 30 May specifically rules out any basic change in the principles of the budget and the common agricultural policy? Is he aware that the British Government have therefore lost any chance that they had of pressing for fundamental reforms and that at the end of the day, when the review is completed, all that we shall have will be another cosmetic compromise which does nothing to remove the harmful effects of British membership of the EEC?

The right hon. Gentleman goes on saying these things and pays no attention at all to the facts. He must be well aware that the principles of the common agricultural policy are perfectly all right. It is to their application that we have objections. He will see from article 39 of the Treaty that the principles are totally unexceptionable. The 30 May agreement contained the undertaking or the agreement to avoid unacceptable situations recurring. Therefore, there will be a fundamental review and the Commission will be putting forward its proposals within a few months.

While not dissenting at all from the need to reform the CAP, does my right hon. Friend accept that in a hungry world it is much better to have a surplus than a shortage? Will he bear that in mind in guiding our approach to the problem?

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that a surplus is much better than a shortage. Certainly, Poland and the Soviet Union would be more pleased to have Common Market surpluses than the deficits from which they suffer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the reply that he gave in relation to proposed changes in the CAP, because when the referendum campaign was under way we, as opponents to entry into the Common Market, were told that it was better to change the CAP policy from within and that the sooner we joined the better? Why does the right hon. Gentleman now tell the House that that is not the way to change the CAP?

I do not think that I said that. With respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I said that I did not think the right way to proceed was for us to put forward publicly detailed proposals to reform the CAP. They would merely be picked to bits by other people. In any event, the initial proposals should come from the Commission.