asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of Argentina objecting to the information demanded in advance of transit passengers to the Falkland Islands at Buenos Aires; and whether citizens in transit face similar difficulties anywhere else in the world.

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the requirement that passengers booking flights to the Falkland Islands should provide details of their passports. This requirement is not restricted to passengers travelling to the islands; it also applies to foreign passengers on internal flights within Argentina. Such requirements for transit passengers are not unique.

Is the Minister aware that the Falkland Islands Company Ltd. has told me that it cannot make any bookings on LADE in less than six weeks? Is the Minister further aware that the details that he has outlined must be sent to the Falkland Islands six weeks in advance? Surely that is a most unusual procedure, particularly as it has operated only for a year.

The documentation requirement is to ensure that travellers to the Falkland Islands have the right documents for entry. It ensures that they are not turned back. There is no sinister motive. I understand that it is perfectly possible to book seats on flights to Port Stanley at short notice. Sometimes the flights are full, but it is usually possible to obtain a seat. With a few weeks' notice, it is always possible to book a seat.

Since it looks as if there will not be any speedy solution to the dispute between the Falkland Islands and Argentina, does my hon. Friend have any plans to help those on the Falkland Islands more directly?

As my hon. Friend knows, last month we held a round of talks with the Argentinians in New York. It was agreed to meet again to discuss the matter further. In the meanwhile, we are continuing to help the islands in every possible way through aid and other measures. However, the dispute is certainly inhibiting economic development.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations he has had with the United Kingdom's European partners with a view to formulating a common policy on the problem of El Salvador.

The subject of El Salvador has been considered at official level within the political cooperation framework, and will shortly be discussed by Foreign Ministers.

Will the Minister confirm the reports that appeared in some of this morning's newspapers to the effect that the EEC has unfrozen aid to El Salvador despite the representations made by the United States of America? Does not he agree that the sooner we dissociate ourselves as far as possible from the policies of the United States of America on Latin America in general, and on El Salvador in particular, the better?

The EEC has agreed to provide 400,000 ECUs in cash, and 1,050 tonnes of cereals to the Red Cross in order to relieve the suffering of refugees in El Salvador. Assurances have been given that the aid will reach those for whom it is intended, namely, the refugees. Our policy on El Salvador was set out in a statement, which my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary made just before he left for Washington.

What interests does the United Kingdom have in El Salvador? If those interests are nil, should not we direct out attention to countries with which we have closer connections?

It is true that historically and traditionally we have not had great contact with or interests in El Salvador. However, everybody must be concerned about the savage civil war that is being fought there. We should like to do anything that we can to help. However, it is not an area in which we are principally concerned.

What powers or rights has the EEC, as such, in these matters?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the EEC operates a considerable aid programme. Quite rightly, it has directed aid to the refugees. It has directed aid not to either side of the dispute, but towards the relief of distress among refugees.

Is it not the case that the strengthening of militarist regimes in Central America could well he a threat to the agreement on Belize which the hon. Gentleman announced to the House yesterday?

We have made clear—I quote from the statement—that

"Her Majesty's Government consider that the people of El Salvador should be able to determine their own future peacefully and democratically."

I think that there is no one in this House who would not welcome free and fair elections in El Salvador, the results of which were respected by the military junta there, unlike the results of the last election in El Salvador. But the case still remains that there will not be a peaceful end to the civil war without negotiation between the two sides, with some support from friendly countries outside. Why will not the Government support these efforts?

We are happy to support any chance that talks would bring peace between the sides. What I question is whether this is the right moment and whether we are the right people to initiate such talks, particularly as we have very few historical or traditional ties with El Salvador.

Did my hon. Friend notice that, in relation to Afghanistan, the nation States of the EEC demonstrated completely divergent views and interests? Will he not agree that it is now necessary to adopt a national attitude towards these various problems rather than to attempt a pretentious EEC solution?

While I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about Afghanistan, I think that the countries of the EEC are acting in concert over El Salvador. There is no suggestion at the present time that they are putting themselves forward to mediate in the dispute, but equally there is no dispute between them about the situation there.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been received from foreign Governments concerning the proposed rapid deployment force; and whether he will make a statement.

There have been no formal representations. We are of course in frequent touch with our friends and allies on these matters.

Following the Prime Minister's excellent statement in Washington, are not the Royal Marine commando forces admirably suited to this purpose? While we would not wish to force any military assistance upon any other Power, is it not necessary, when the Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan, Aden and other vital points, and has fleets in nearly every ocean of the world, that we should at least have a comparable maritime counter force?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence dealt at some length at Question Time yesterday with the forces that we have or might have available, including the Spearhead battalion. The concept outlined by the Prime Minister in Washington is really very simple. We are conscious, as are several of our allies, of the Soviet threat outside the NATO area. We have certain resources available. It seems sensible to work together to make those resources effective.

Will the Minister urgently consult our NATO allies to ascertain their views on that rather strange declaration yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence, namely, that NATO-assigned forces would be made available to a rapid deployment force for use outside the NATO area?

The hon. Gentleman put that question to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend dealt with it then. I have nothing to add to what he said.

Will my hon. Friend agree that as a precursor to the effectiveness of a rapid deployment force, treaties of mutual assistance or defence might be entered into with those countries that might be considered to be under threat from the Soviet Union?

With regard to the Gulf States, which my hon. Friend perhaps has in mind, we take the view that their security is primarily a matter for themselves. We are in very close touch with them and they know that if they require assistance, we—and no doubt our friends, but certainly we ourselves—would be glad to give it. That is clearly understood and I do not think that it needs underwriting by formal treaty.

If the hon. Gentleman believes that defence is best left to the countries in the area, why was it that the Prime Minister made her announcement that there would be a rapid deployment force and that it could be used in the Gulf before there was any question of consultation with our allies? What did the Government say to Mr. Hammadi of Iraq last week when he argued against the establishment of the force?

The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. We are not talking about permanently stationing British forces in the Gulf, or of a new formal treaty relationship: This is absolutely understood in the Gulf. One or two newspapers in the Gulf took it up the wrong way but there is no misunderstanding, either with the Iraq Government or with the other Governments of the Gulf, with all of whom we have recently been in touch.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what response has been made by the United States authorities to the United Kingdom's assurance that the European Economic Community initiative on the Middle East, stemming from the Venice Declaration, was intended to complement the United States' efforts.

The United States State Department made the following statement on 4 March:

"We have made plain that this Administration supports the ongoing peace process and intends to build on it in seeking a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict. We feel that the talks over the past days here with our European allies have confirmed that all of us have a major interest in achieving peace in the Middle East and strengthening security against the Soviet threat there. We are confident that they understand the importance of taking no action that would undercut the peace process. We particularly welcome Mrs. Thatcher's public remarks here that the efforts of the European Community Ten are meant to be complementary to efforts being made by the United States to move towards the comprehensive settlement we all seek."

Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with the United States authorities the unhappy possibility that he might meet Yasser Arafat and, if so, what response did he receive?

As far as I know, that was not discussed. The hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Question Time recently, that it may well be necessary for my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary to meet Mr. Arafat or the PLO during the Presidency.

Disgraceful.

Although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have had no ministerial contacts with the PLO, we have not ruled that out, but we have always said that it would be much easier to have such contacts if the PLO changed its attitude.

The rather obscure communiqu— which my right hon. Friend read out surely points to the fact that, from the Americans' point of view, the only "ongoing peace process" is the Camp David agreement. Surely it is time now that it was admitted publicly that the so-called European initiative has gone into total abeyance.

With respect, what my right hon. Friend says is quite untrue. It may have been the way I read it out, but I do not think that the statement was very obscure. My right hon. Friend will remember that the European initiative took place at the time when the Camp David process seemed to be more or less in abeyance. We hope that it will not remain in abeyance. Equally, I assure him that the European peace initiative is also not in abeyance.

Would not the best way to complement the efforts of the United States be to recognise unequivocally the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination in accordance with United Nations principles, and to point out to the American Government the error of their ways in not doing likewise?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the twin principles in the European initiative announced at Venice—that the legitimate rights of the Palestinians should be recognised and, at the same time, that the security of Israel should be recognised. That is a good way forward towards peace.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is essential to bring back the United States into the centre of the peace-making process in the Middle East, it is also extremely important that the momentum of the European initiative should not be lost? Does he agree that the present speeding-up of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank is quite intolerable? What do the Government propose to do about that?

On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I hope that we can all agree that we regret the speeding-up of settlements on the West Bank. As the House knows, the Government and earlier British Governments have always believed strongly that those settlements are illegal and are an obstacle to peace. I agree that the momentum should be kept up and that the United States should he brought back—if it has ever left—to the centre of the peace-making stage. As my hon. Friend will be aware, Mr. Haig will be visiting the area next month. We all agree that that is an excellent thing to be doing.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place Syria in connection with peace moves in the Middle East.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what consultations have taken place with Jordan in the context of the European Economic Community proposals for a Middle East peace.

Mr. van der Klaauw, the Netherlands Foreign Minister, visited Syria and Jordan last month on behalf of the 10 members of the European Community in order to discuss the practical issues involved in a peace settlement, as decided by the European Council meeting of 2 December. I paid bilateral visits to Jordan and Syria from 1 to 6 February. The prospects for a peaceful settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute were among the subjects discussed.

Has the right hon. Gentleman got clear from the Syrians whether they still have eyes on the whole of the land of Palestine? The next time he is in the vicinity of Aleppo or Damascus, will he make clear that the interests of the area and the interests of Syria would be best served by coming to an agreement with Israel, as the one country in the area which can be of benefit to the whole of the Middle East?

I agree that Syria would be well advised to come to an agreement with Israel, just as Israel would be well advised to come to an agreement with Syria. We all support that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As far as I know, Syria does not, as he put it, have its eyes on the whole of Palestine. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Syrian Government have., since the 1973 war, always accepted Security Council resolution No. 338, thereby implicitly accepting No. 242. I have no doubt that, both from their public and private statements, they support a negotiated peace.

What talks have taken place with Jordan to try to persuade it to recognise Israel? What talks has the right hon. Gentleman had with Jordan to persuade it to enter into peace talks, whether at Camp David or anywhere else, with a view to bringing a long-term peace to the Middle East?

As King Hussein has for a long time made clear, Jordan has supported a peaceful settlement of the Middle East controversy. That has always been his view. He has been explicit on that point for many years. But if the hon. Gentleman is referring to the so-called Jordanian option, King Hussein, like many other people, has made it plain that, although Jordan has an important part to play in peace negotiations, there can be no question of Jordan cutting out the Palestinians.

I believe that my right hon. Friend has already said so, but is it not clear that it would be very much against the interests of Jordan to take the lead in the matter of the West Bank and quite impossible to rely on that as a stepping stone to future policy?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. That has been agreed throughout the Arab world ever since the Rabat conference with which King Hussein thoroughly agreed. He has made it clear that the so-called Jordanian option is not a real option.

Now that the Knesset has wisely thrown out the stupid and provocative Bill purporting to annexe the Golan—Syrian territory, would it not be a further advance if Israel began to remove its settlements and military forces from Syria?

I have already made our view clear to the House and to the hon. Gentleman on settlements in the occupied territories. We think that they are illegal and have no doubt that they are an obstacle to peace.

What grounds can my right hon. Friend advance for believing that the PLO is any more representative of the wishes and aspirations of the Palestinian people than the IRA is of the Irish Catholic community in Northern Ireland?

I do not think that my hon. Friend can be serious in asking that question.

Indeed I am.

It has often been shown, both in the Republic of Ireland and in the North, that the IRA enjoys virtually no popular support. If my hon. Friend believes that the PLO enjoys no popular support among the Palestinians, either on the West Bank, in the refugee camps or elsewhere, he should go there and find out for himself.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek to terminate the Gleneagles agreement with a view to renewing sporting links with South Africa.

No, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Gleneagles agreement has become an easy political move from any country wishing to harm South Africa? Is he not concerned that the recent black list of sportsmen drawn up by the South African Non-Racial Olympic Committee is a gross infringement of personal liberty? Will he assure the House that the Government will dissociate themselves from any United Nations resolution that may support the existence of that list?

The black list is a different matter from the Gleneagles agreement. I assure my hon. Friend that we could not accept any proposal which obliged the British Government to impose limitations on the freedom of movement of our own citizens.

Will the Minister take the opportunity today to reaffirm the Government's belief that apartheid is totally unacceptable to the British people? Will he take the opportunity, in a statement which he could issue today, to advise British sports people invited to South Africa that they should not go, since that is tantamount to accepting apartheid?

We have frequently made our position clear on that. We strongly disapprove of apartheid. On several occasions we have communicated our continued support for the Gleneagles agreement to sporting organisations.

What positive action does my hon. Friend propose to take to prevent blackmail of individual sportsmen, as appears to be proposed by various neo-Marxist organisations?

There are already signs that some countries are having second thoughts about the blackmail involved in such black lists. I cite the example of the statement by the four West Indian Governments recently made in connection with cricket. We cannot dictate to other countries whom they will admit into their territory, but we insist that our sporting organisations should have the right to choose their own teams. We insist that we cannot be obliged to dictate to our sportsmen where and when they go.

Does the Minister agree with the statement made last night by the President of Nigeria to the effect that we should reduce our ties, especially our economic ties, with South Africa? Is it not a fact that the odious policies of the South African Government not only create instability in Southern Africa but threaten both the commercial and security interests of Western democracies?

As we have frequently made clear, we draw a distinction between economic ties on the one hand and sporting ties on the other. In connection with sporting ties, there is no doubt that the actions taken in the past have led to increased integration in South Africa. In relation to economic ties with South Africa, I have nothing to add to what has already been said many times by the Government on that subject.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals Her Majesty's Government plan to make to the 1982 United Nations special session on disarmament.

The first full meeting of the preparatory committee for the second United Nations special session on disarmament will by held in May. We are considering with our partners and allies the nature of the Western contribution.

Are the Government taking any serious initiative in this matter? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Campaign for World Disarmament, for which the Government expressed support last year, is organising a petition calling on all Governments and the United Nations Assembly to abolish nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction? Will the Government support that campaign and will the Minister sign that petition?

I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. Everyone in his senses wants to see arms control agreements and then disarmament agreements, but they will come about by negotiation and not by the signing of petitions. Negotiations will succeed only if there is a reasonably hard-headed approach to them, based on balance in the first place and verification in the second place.

Will my hon. Friend remind Labour Members that the French put forward specific and realistic proposals at the Madrid review conference on European disarmament, which were backed by the British Government and the United States, and that the Soviet Union persistently blocked those proposals because they involved verifiable notification of Soviet troop manoeuvres, as well as everybody else's troop manoeuvres? Is it not clear that, under the guise of protracted talks on disarmament, the Soviet Union simply wants to build up its own relative military strength?

My hon. Friend is right about the French proposal on confidence-building measures. We are exploring a rather difficult passage in Mr. Brezhnev's speech to see whether there is any advance there, but I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, even more urgent than a United Nations special assembly or even a European disarmamemt conference, are negotiations between the Soviet Union and the Western allies on the limitation of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, bearing in mind particularly that the rate of deployment of SS20s by the Soviet Union looks like rising from one a fortnight to two a week over the next 12 months? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that the British representative at the forthcoming consultative committee does his utmost to press for early substantive negotiations between the Soviet Union and the West on that matter?

We are in favour of that and we are therefore glad that President Reagan's Administration have made clear that they are also in favour. However, we are not in favour of accepting that the talks should be on the basis of President Brezhnev's latest proposal of a moratorium on such deployment which would take place when the Soviet Union has an advantage of 4:1 in this respect.

Is it not the case that, given the rate of deployment of SS20s, by the time the first of the Pershing II or cruise missiles is deployed in Europe the Soviet superiority could have risen to 20:1? In those circumstances, is it in the West's interests to avoid negotiations until Western missiles have been deployed?

The right hon. Gentleman does not put the position fairly. We are not avoiding negotiations; we are in favour of negotiations, but only on a realistic basis. Meanwhile, we are proceeding with the plans agreed by NATO for TNF modernisation, which will start becoming effective in 1983.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he holds regular consultations with Foreign Ministers of Commonwealth countries.

There are opportunities for Commonwealth Foreign Ministers to meet during the regular Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings. There are also numerous bilateral contacts between my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself and individual Commonwealth Foreign Ministers.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask whether he agrees that the Government should strive for closer Commonwealth co-operation on major international policy issues of interest to the free world?

I heartily agree with my hon. Friend. The discussions that we have had with our Commonwealth colleagues, whether at the Heads of Government meeting, on the fringes of that meeting or bilaterally, have often covered the question of the preservation of the interests of the free world. There is no doubt that the principles and ideals on which the Commonwealth is based are inconsistent with the threat to the free world.

What representations have been made to the Minister through the channels arranged for those regular meetings about the interpretation of and misunderstanding arising from the British Nationality Bill? Will he further take into account the grave apprehension expressed about the increase in overseas students' fees?

Formal representations about the British Nationality Bill have been made to the Government by only one Commonwealth Government. The points made are being taken into account by my right hon. Friend Home Secretary and no doubt they will be considered in the coming weeks. Fees for overseas students are certainly a matter of concern to many Commonwealth Governments. The hon. Gentleman knows that the decision to phase out the blanket subsidy was taken with reluctance, in the interests of attempting to control Government spending. We are closely monitoring its effects.

In the course of such consultations there will obviously be discussions about sporting links with South Africa. Will my hon. Friend give an undertaking, in advance of such consultations, that he will pass to representatives of the Commonwealth the report of the fact-finding commission sent to South Africa by the Sports Council, because it gives a fair opinion of the efforts being made to integrate sport in South Africa?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the value of that report. It has been sent to many destinations, including the International Olympic Committee and international sporting federations. I shall inquire whether it has been communicated to Commonwealth Governments. I accept that at the forthcoming Heads of Government meeting the question of sporting links with South Africa will be discussed. We have already had notice from four West Indian countries that they propose to raise the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, while Lord Carrington made clear in Lagos a few weeks ago that the Government had not ruled out the possibility of economic sanctions against South Africa, the Prime Minister made clear yesterday that there would be no such sanctions? What explanation will the Government give to President Shagari of Nigeria, who is visiting this country, for that apparent change of policy?

I cannot add to the statements to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to meet the United States Secretary of Stale to follow up matters discussed in the recent official visit to the United States of America.

My right hon. Friend hopes to meet the United States Secretary of State when he is in London on 9 April.

Will the Minister of State press Mr. Haig to respond to the recent offer by Mr. Brezhnev on SALT, cruise missiles and troop movements, thus lessening East-West tension, rather than heightening it, as the Iron Maiden is doing?

We always discuss these matters with our American allies, but there will be no readiness to concede military weakness as a ground for giving away any part of our defences. I am sure that all such matters will be discussed at future meetings and I hope that in the meantime the hon. Gentleman will agree that we should keep up our guard and make sure that we do not have any agreement that disadvantages the West.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new American Secretary of State, General Haig, has made some sensible and positive pronouncements about the importance of Southern Africa and, in particular, of Namibia? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should support the determination of the United States not to allow the Marxist jackboot to take over Southern Africa, which is so important to the whole Western world, not only because of its strategic position, but because of the vital raw materials that it possesses?

My hon. Friend can assess what the American Secretary of State says about all those matters. I assure him that full and agreeable talks took place between my right hon. Friends and the Secretary of State in Washington and that the situation was discussed without any great divergence of view.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the Secretary of State will he emphasise to him the considerable alarm that exists in many parts of this country over the manner in which the United States Administration are conducting their foreign policy in South America? I refer particularly to the oblique harassment of the Nicaraguan Government, the attempt to bolster the unjust economic regime in El Salvador and now the attempts to get even closer to the military dictatorships of Argentina and Chile.

I think that the right hon. Gentleman has to admit that those who supply arms clandestinely to aid the rebels who are fighting against an established Government have every right to incur censure from the American Government, from ourselves, and from the Opposition Benches.

Did Mr. Alexander Haig say to the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary in Washington, or subsequently, that he actually approved of, and welcomed, the EEC initiative on the Middle East?

I cannot give a full answer to that question, not having been present on that occasion. I can assure my hon. Friend that it was agreed that the Venice declaration was complementary to and not in conflict with what the Americans are seeking to do through Camp David.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in negotiating the accession of Spain and Portugal to the European Economic Community.

Community Foreign Ministers met the Spanish Foreign Minister in Brussels on 16 March. A number of new papers were tabled by both sides. The meeting reviewed the progress of the negotiations so far and the Community reaffirmed its commitment to Spanish membership. There will be a ministerial meeting with Portugal in April. The Community is keeping to its working programme of three meetings a year at ministerial level with each applicant.

In the light of recent events, will my right hon. Friend confirm the increased importance of enabling these two democracies to gain accession at the earliest opportunity and to be strengthened by that membership? Will he also undertake to discuss with his ministerial equivalents in the rest of the EEC possible interim assistance, either financial or political, that may have the effect of strengthening these democracies?

I agree thoroughly with what my hon. Friend says. Recent events have stressed the importance of these negotiations being successful. In answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, Spain has applied for a pre-accession loan from the European Investment Bank. We are in favour of this in principle although the details remain to be decided. We are also ready to help Spain in other ways.

Since economic convergence remains a Community objective, does the Minister believe that it will be possible to make any significant contribution to the economies of Portugal or Spain through the regional and social funds without an increase in the total EEC budget?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we, like a number of member States, if not all, are in favour of maintaining the 1 per cent. VAT limit. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question will become clearer during the restructuring negotiations and also during the negotiations on enlargement.

When my right hon. Friend has further discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the accession of Spain to the EEC, will he endeavour to get a firm commitment on the date of the implementation of the Lisbon agreement? This was drawn up on 8 April 1980, but still the border remains closed between the Spanish mainland and Gibraltar.

What my hon. Friend says is regrettably true. We are approaching the first anniversary of that agreement and it has not yet been implemented. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been ready to implement it from the word "Go". We very much hope that the Spanish Government will agree to do so before long.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that the consolidation of democracy in Spain is an essential condition for Spain's integration into Europe and the rest of the world and that a military takeover, such as was fortunately avoided some weeks ago, could lead only to the isolation of Spain, not only in Europe, but in the world as a whole?

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman. A military takeover in Spain when there has been such a successful return to democracy would be even more unjustified than similar military takeovers. It would be a historic leap backwards. It would plainly be vastly unpopular with almost the whole population of Spain. It would, indeed, ensure the isolation of Spain from the rest of Europe, because adherence to democracy is a fundamental requirement for all members of the European Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to discuss with his European Economic Community counterparts the standardisation of European Economic Community affairs.

There is no proposal on the "standardisation of European Community affairs", and I have no plans to discuss it, especially as I do not know what it means.

I can perhaps enlighten the Minister. Is he aware, for example, that the textile industry deeply resents the wide variety of subsidies given to other EEC textile industries, which are costing thousands of jobs in this country? Is he aware that no progress seems to have been made either in tabulating or eliminating those subsidies in other EEC countries?

The hon. Gentleman is normally against standardisation and harmonisation. I note that he has now modified his view. If he has evidence of what he says and that this is not being properly followed up, I hope that he will give it to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. I doubt very much whether the difficulties of our textile industry, in common with a number of other textile industries, are due to unfair competition from within the European Community. I think that they are much more due to competition from the developing world. I shall be delighted to look at any evidence that the hon. Gentleman can give me.

Will My right hon. Friend tell me what political gremlins got into the system when Her Majesty's Government agreed to the provision of a European passport? Does he not realise what an outrage it is against the British people? Will he take whatever action is necessary to prevent this proposal being carried through?

The British Government have not agreed to any such thing and there has not been a proposal. There is no proposal to end a British national passport. Of course the British passport will remain a British passport. All that has been agreed is that the Community nations will have a common format of passport. That was agreed in principle by the Labour Government as long ago as 1974. My right hon. and noble Friend made clear in Brussels on Monday that the timing of this must remain in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. We have agreed in principle, as I told the House on 13 March, to go over to a machine-readable passport. That would coincide with the introduction of a common format passport. We have no intention of introducing two such passports.

Can the House be given a rather fuller statement on the EEC passport proposal so that we may know what it means? Can hon Members be assured that there will be a debate in the House before a final decision is taken by the Government?

I do not honestly believe that it is a complicated proposal, but I shall see that more information is provided. The target date, even for the Community, is 1985. We have said that we probably cannot meet that date because of the requirement that it should coincide with the introduction of the ICAO passport. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the timing is such that there will be a great many opportunities to debate the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that this matter has gone much further than he says, as is shown by the statement in The Times today? What is more, will he instruct his officials to withdraw the portrait of Sir Walter Scott which appears on the facsimile? Sir Walter Scott at least wrote:

"Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, Who never to himself hath said, This is my own, my native land!"

That was a very good and well-prepared supplementary question. As I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr.Marlow), we are not ending the British passport. My right hon. Friend's annoyance is, therefore, based on a false premise. We have not gone further than I warned the House in a reply on Friday. We are talking about a common format passport. The important characteristics of the British passport, the coat of arms and the usual rubric, will still be there. My right hon. Friend need not be so worried.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government, during their tenure of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, will press for a reexamination of the Proposals for improvements in the cost-effectiveness of the Community's external representation made in the Commission's communication of 9 March 1978 (COM) (78) 66 final).

The Commission's communication of 9 March 1978, which largely concerns matters within the Commission's competence, was noted by the Council of Ministers in September 1978. The Council expressed general agreement with the Commission's analysis. The United Kingdom continues to attach importance to securing the maximum cost-effectiveness in the Community's external representation, on the basis of the Council of Ministers' earlier conclusions.

Will there not always be considerable scope for economies in the manning and competence of overseas missions by pooling activities in many cases, or by delegating activities to the local offices of the European Community itself?

My hon. Friend is right. There is scope for a great deal of co-operation. As he knows, a great deal of co-operation already exists among regular heads of missions in most capitals. We are certainly prepared to consider any ideas or proposals for further coordination and rationalisation which will save money and increase efficiency.

During the Foreign Secretary's tenure as President, does he propose to meet Mr. Yasser Arafat? If so, does he consider that that will do much to reassure the State of Israel that its security is guaranteed?

I am not sure how that question arises from the original question. I answered the question earlier. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, it might be necessary for the Foreign Secretary, when he is President, to meet Mr. Arafat. I do not agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question. I do not believe that to cut off all contact with the PLO is likely to bring about a peaceful settlement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made for the strengthening of foreign policy co-operation in the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

Following the instruction from the Foreign Ministers' meeting on 4 November last year, officials of the Ten are currently examining ways of improving political co-operation. They will report to Ministers in due course.

In what spheres does my right hon. Friend expect that foreign affairs initiatives will be taken during the period that we have the Presidency of the Council of Ministers? Does he expect further developments in the Middle East?

A general answer is difficult to give. Unfortunately, I do not have the necessary degree of far-sightedness. As to the second part of my hon. Friend's question, that will depend on the current round of visits and the report by the Netherlands' Foreign Minister, Mr. van der Klaauw. We shall then see what the next development of the European initiative should be.

Will the Minister undertake to continue to press for a European initiative for peace in the Middle East? In doing so, will he undertake to consult not only Israel and the front-line Arab States but representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organisation?

We have already dealt with that to some extent. Of course, it is important, in pursuance of the European initiative, that contacts should be maintained with Israel and all the relevant Arab States. The Venice declaration mentions the PLO, so it has to be connected with the peace settlement. I am sure that that is true.

Does my right hon. Friend regard the introduction of the Common Market format burgundy passport as a contribution to foreign policy? If not, what is it supposed to achieve? Does my right hon. Friend realise that his earlier answer trivialises what many people regard as a serious matter? Can he confirm that, whatever the legalities, he would like the House of Commons to make the final decision?

I do not understand why "burgundy" should be regarded as such a form of abuse. I do not agree that I was trivialising the matter. I was making it clear that the change cannot and will not happen for a number of years. Therefore, there is no question of the House of Commons being bounced into it. The idea that there will be no opportunity for discussion is far from our minds. As I told the House a month ago, the issue has been on the agenda since 1974. It has not been rushed.

If co-operation on foreign policy is strengthened, does that mean that the British Government will be more frequently on the side of freedom, humanity and common justice rather than backing brutal Fascist regimes, such as that represented by the junta in El Salvador?

Both the general and particular premises on which that question is based are wrong. We are on the side of freedom. We do not back, in general, brutal Fascist regimes. My hon. Friend made clear earlier our attitude to the El Salvador difficulties.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received from the Confederation of British Industry about the volume and scope of European Economic Community legislation; and if he will make a statement.

The Confederation of British Industry sent me a copy of the confederation's study "The Impact of European Economic Community Legislation on British Business". This study sets out the CBI's attitude on this question and my colleagues and I have found it very helpful. We share the CBI's belief that legislation can be justified only where there is a tangible and positive benefit.

As the Government are committed to a reduction in the volume of legislation, what is the Minister doing to try to reduce the amount of trivial legislation which causes a great deal of concern and cost to industry? What success has he had? In particular, has he been able to give any joy at all to the CBI about the appalling lack of effectiveness of the anti-dumping procedures in the EEC since they involve a mass of paper and regulations which are wholly ineffective and are destroying jobs in Britain?

Our view on the first part of my hon. Friend's question is expressed in my main answer. We share the CBI view and we have made our view clear to the Commission. I hope that it will find general agreement. I do not agree that the anti-dumping legislation is monumentally ineffective. If my hon. Friend sends me examples or gives them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade, we shall examine them. My hon. Friend will appreciate that this is a difficult matter, whether the EEC or an individual State is dealing with it. It is often difficult to act in time. If my hon. Friend provides evidence we shall certainly act upon it.

Is it not time that the EEC, especially the Commission, stopped wasting time on trivial legislation which puts a burden on industry? Would it not be better to reform the EEC which, after almost 30 years, is still suffering from the common agricultural policy, which is completely irrelevant to Europe today? Does he agree that the EEC has no industrial policy which is relevant to the problems of Western Europe?

We all agree that we do not want to waste time on trivial legislation. We are also in favour of reforming the CAP and the Community. I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's language but I accept the general drift of his argument.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of British industry believes that harmonisation for harmonisation's sake is irritating and harmful? Is he aware that he must do something to get the bureaucrats off the back of British industry, otherwise it will begin to fall out with the concept?

I agree that harmonisation for the sake of harmonisation is a waste of time and is wrong. The CBI study to which I referred strongly supports our membership of the Community.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that a number of EEC legislative proposals recommended by the Scrutiny Committee for debate in the House have not yet been debated? Will the Government bring them forward? Can we be sure that the Government will not accept them in Brussels before they have been debated in the House?

If the proposals have been outstanding for a long time they will be debated before they are acted upon. I shall look into the matter. I think that the right hon,. Gentleman is aware that we have been scrupulous in these matters, and we will continue to be so.