asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made by the five Western Powers over Namibian independence; and whether he will make a statement.

The Foreign Ministers of the five Western Governments met in Rome on 3 May and reiterated their Governments' commitment to an internationally acceptable settlement to the Namibia issue. I am circulating in the Official Report the text of the communiqué issued after that meeting.

How does the Minister square the new negotiating position of the contact group with resolution No. 435, particularly the proposed guarantees for the white minority? Is there not a danger of a sell-out to South Africa? Has not the sanctions veto of France, the United States and the United Kingdom at the Security Council seriously weakened the Western Powers' negotiating position vis-a-vis South Africa and alienated the whole of black Africa?

I certainly do not believe that the Western five who met in Rome and issued the communiqué can be accused in any way of a sell-out. They reaffirmed that Security Council resolution 435 is a solid basis on which we can proceed to a negotiated settlement, although there are many areas in which we need to strengthen the proposals, which is why the officials of the five are meeting in Washington this week to work out more detailed proposals. I notice that the Labour Party appears to have drifted into supporting the idea of imposing sanctions. I must make our position clear. We have said consistently for the past two years that we do not believe that imposing sanctions is a constructive way to deal with the problem of Namibia. It would not help negotiations; nor would it lead to a settlement.

In view of the comparative failure of the earlier five-Power negotiations, is not the proposal of the new American Administration much more likely to be brought to a successful conclusion? Will the Government back it 100 per cent?

As I said, the Foreign Ministers of the five Western nations met in Rome, and we have agreed a basis on which to draw up a fresh series of proposals to strengthen the Security Council resolution, which is a solid base but which needs strengthening. That is why we are working hard on the matter.

Is there evidence that the new American Administration have a policy on Namibia different from that of the previous Administration?

Following the tour of African States by Mr. Crocker, the Assistant Secretary, African Affairs, the position of the American Administration is as stated in the communiqué. The five Western nations are entirely together on the policy.

Is it not in our interests to have a settlement and elections in Namibia as soon as possible? Will the Minister confirm that, as negotiations are likely to produce results faster than sanctions, the policy being followed is the right one?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are taking the most constructive approach. Had sanctions been imposed, negotiations would have been far more difficult.

Does the Minister's reference to M r. Chester Crocker imply that Mr. Crocker has reversed the view that he expressed on his tour of Africa that resolution No. 435 is "dead in the water"? Do the front-line States agree with the five Western Governments' view about what strengthening the resolution implies?

The position of the American Government is absolutely clear. They support everything in the communiqué agreed by the five Foreign Ministers in Rome. They therefore regard resolution 435 as a solid base. With regard to strengthening the proposals, an impasse having been reached in Geneva in January, it was clearly necessary to find new ways in which to move forward. In my view, it is only constructive that the five Western nations should work closely together to do that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to announce the name of the next Governor of Hong Kong.

At the appropriate time.

Is the Minister aware that many hon. Members hope that the next Governor of Hong Kong will be a person who really believes in democratic reform and social justice for Hong Kong and not a puppet of big business such as the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, the Jockey Club and Jardine Matheson? Will consideration be given to the possible appointment of a Chinese person, bearing in mind that 98 per cent. of the population is Chinese and that the treaty on the New Territories expires in 15 years?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman was not reflecting adversely on the conduct of the affairs of Hong Kong by the present Governor, for whom there is widespread admiration in Hong Kong and in other countries associated with it. I wish that Labour Members would not constantly adopt a carping tone towards Hong Kong, the achievements of which are remarkable by any standards and certainly by the standards of Asia. We know why they do so. It is because Hong Kong is one of the most successful examples of free enterprise in the world and Labour Members do not like that.

Does the Minister realise how popular the present Governor of Hong Kong is and what a splendid job he does, that the majority of people in Hong Kong would reiterate the Minister's praise for him and that any criticism of him should be withdrawn?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The successes of Hong Kong during the 10 years that Sir Murray Maclehose has been Governor have been remarkable.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about preparations for the Mexico meeting of Foreign Ministers in August.

Preparations for the meeting of Foreign Ministers are in the hands of the Mexican and Austrian Governments, acting on behalf of the 11 co-sponsoring countries. We are in close touch with them.

Will the Minister arrange to meet his colleagues from the six other Commonwealth countries who will be going to Mexico, with a view to ensuring a full discussion of the matter at the Commonwealth conference and perhaps getting a unified Commonwealth line at the subsequent meeting of Heads of Government in Mexico in October?

I am sure that these matters will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. However, I do not think that the Mexicans would like to feel that blocs were forming in advance of the summit or that positions were being pre-empted before it took place.

Is my hon. Friend aware that thousands of people in this country are anxious that something solid should come out of the Mexican summit which will put flesh on the bones of the Brandt report before it becomes a skeleton? Will he assure the House that he and his right hon. Friends will go to the Mexico summit with constructive proposals and not just suggestions that everything should be put off for discussion at another international meeting a year later?

I cannot promise my hon. Friend that I shall be going to the Mexico summit, but I assure him that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will go to those meetings in a constructive spirit to try to find ways of making practical advances from the position that we have now reached.

Cannot the Minister say anything at all about the Government's objectives in going to Mexico? It is all very well to say that they will be constructive and positive, but in what respects, for example, does he expect that the Mexico experience will alter the Government's policies towards the Third world?

Although I share the hon. Gentleman's desire for positive initiatives to come from the Mexico summit, I believe that it is better to allow the discussion to be free and, as it were, unpre-empted. That is exactly what the Mexicans and the Austrians, the convenors of the conference, have asked all of us to do.

Is it not clear from the hon. Gentleman's answers that the Government have no idea at all what proposals to put forward for the Mexico summit, although they pretend that they have now discovered the Brandt report? Will the Government at least consider the proposals for the reform of the IMF and the World Bank, for instance, so that the developing countries may have some say in the international financial system?

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that those questions have been examined and discussed in some depth, but I believe that he would be wrong to suggest that we should go to the Mexico summit with preconceived ideas. That it certainly not what the Mexicans themselves want.

asked the Lord Privy Seal to what extent he considers Soviet initiatives on the Middle East will contribute towards the present Middle East peace efforts.

We have noted recent Soviet references to the possibility of an international Middle East peace conference and the reactions of the parties concerned. We doubt that such a conference can be convened in present circumstances, but are ready to consider all positive moves aimed at bringing a lasting settlement closer.

I note that reply, but is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the enormous danger to world peace created by the present situation? What action have the Government taken to impress upon the Russians the urgency of the withdrawal of the SAM missiles and for the long-term development of a missile-free zone in the Middle East that the Russians and Americans could create?

There are later questions relating specifically to Lebanon. We have been in touch with the Russians, as with everybody else, and have urged restraint in all quarters. I am afraid that I do not know much about the prospects for a missile-free zone, but that, like everything else, we are prepared to consider.

As the most visible Soviet contribution to the present situation in the Middle East has been the supply of a blood-curdling quantity of weapons to Syria, including the missiles now causing all the trouble, would my right hon. Friend prefer to tell us what contribution the Soviets are making towards war in the area?

I do not think that the Soviets can be said to have supplied more weapons to the Middle East than other countries or that it is necessarily right to single them out. No doubt, as is their custom, the Soviets will try to make profit out of unrest in the area. That is yet another reason to press forward with efforts for a comprehensive peace settlement.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that at present 5,000 so-called advisers from the Soviet Union are at present in Syria? Can he tell us what function they are there to perform?

I am afraid that I cannot confirm the number of advisers at present in Syria.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although one of the principal objectives of Western foreign policy should continue to be to resist and to deter Soviet expansionism in the area, as, for instance, in Afghanistan, it would also be sensible to involve the Soviet Union in the peacemaking process in the Middle East?

The Soviet Union, as a prominent member of the Security Council, will have to be involved in the peace process at some point. That is certainly conceded, but I do not think that the time has arrived for that yet.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether statements at the 15th session of the Palestinian National Council concerning the European Economic Community initiative on the Middle East will allow that initiative to proceed in its present form.

The PLO attitude towards the Venice declaration and European peace efforts based on it has on the whole been positive, although it does not regard it as going far enough. The Palestine National Council confirmed this. Its final statement represented no change in the PLO's general public position, although some unhelpful statements were made during the meeting. The outcome of the meeting does not affect our determination to make a positive contribution towards a peaceful settlement and to persuade the PLO to accept fully the principles of a negotiated settlement.

As the initiative has now been greeted with sharp scepticism by the Israelis and with bitter hostility by the great majority of the Palestine National Council, is not it clear that it is bound to be a failure even as a public relations exercise?

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman before, his premise is not right. The initiative has not been greeted in that way by the Palestinians, who have welcomed it, although they think that it does not go far enough. I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to it. Is he against Israeli withdrawal? Is he against security for Israel? Is he against recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinians? If not, why does he not support the European initiative?

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the European initiative, which is a good thing, could be revived most successfully and efficiently if the Palestinian National Council were to give the necessary fundamental assurance that it is prepared to live with Israel on the basis of the pre-1967 borders?

That is something that we would greatly welcome, and for which we have been pressing. We should greatly welcome it if Israel were to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinians. Such mutual recognition would be in the interests of both parties.

Will the Minister unequivocally condemn terrorist violence, whether by the PLO or any other terrorist body?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well, Her Majesty's Government condemn terrorism from wherever it comes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if' he will increase diplomatic representation in Burma.

We have no plans to increase our diplomatic representation in Burma at present.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that answer will be disappointing, although understandable? Is he also aware that there is now increasing evidence that Burma is becoming an outward-looking country? Will he ensure that we have adequate representation so that our commercial interests can take advantage of such opportunities as arise?

It would be rather difficult to undertake to increase our representation in Burma at the moment, when our efforts are directed in general towards reducing the staffing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. However, the embassy in Rangoon is due to be inspected early in 1982 under our normal inspection procedure, and the staffing of the embassy will be reviewed at that time. I welcome the more outward-looking point of view of the Government of Burma, which has been much in evidence in the last year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the situation in the Lebanon in particular and the Middle East in general relating to a solution to the problems of the Palestinians.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the Middle East with particular regard to the current military activity in the Lebanon.

The Government have been watching the continuing crisis in Lebanon with great concern. Unless the crisis is resolved peacefully, tension between Syria and Israel could have grave and damaging repercussions in the Middle East as a whole and even more widely. We remain in touch with the Government of Lebanon and others involved and urge all to be guided in their future actions by the fullest respect for Lebanon's integrity, sovereignty and independence.

Is it not a fact that the temperature seems to be being raised deliberately in the area at the moment by the Prime Minister of Israel, whose record of terrorism since the war is perhaps second to none? Will my right hon. Friend condemn this policy of Lebensraum in Lebanon and Jordan, and will he do everything he can to intensify the search for a solution to the Palestinian problem, without which there will never be peace in the Middle East?

I do not think that condemnations at this time would be helpful. We urge restraint on all sides and we deplore statements or actions that tend to raise the temperature. But, as my hon. Friend knows and as I have said already, we believe that the only way to get peace in this area is by a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian problem.

Although I agree with my right hon. Friend's point of view in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley), since over the last few years Lebanon has been subject to constant attack by land, sea and air from Israel and from Major Haddad, Israel's ally, since hundreds, if not thousands, of women and children, Lebanese and Palestinian, have been killed, and since also the Israelis have laid claim almost to the "Sudetenland" of southern Lebanon, south of the Litani, as being part of Eretz—"Greater Israel"—when does my right hon. Friend expect the Israelis to embark on the final solution of the Palestinian problem?

I agree that the position in South Lebanon has been serious for a number of years. A great many casualties have been caused by both sides. Obviously, any further interference in Lebanon, any further infringement of Lebanese sovereignty, is thoroughly undesirable and will only exacerbate an already very serious position.

With regard to the territories occupied by Israel, has the Minister's attention been drawn to the report issued yesterday by the International Labour Organisation, pointing out that many of these territories and their indigenous economic potential are being squeezed dry, and that the Israelis are doing nothing to enrol the Palestinian Arabs into their trade unions or to encourage them to form trade unions of their own? Does the Minister agree that this behaviour on the part of Israel hardly merits its title of the only democracy in the Middle East?

I am afraid that I have not seen the ILO report, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the attitude of the Government and of both sides of the House to the settlement policy of Israel, which is obviously very prejudicial to those living in the area and a distinct obstacle to peace. We have made our views on that matter very plain.

The Lord Privy Seal said that he had been having discussions with the Government of Lebanon. Have the Lebanese Government asked us specifically to do anything and, if so, what?

I agree that everything should be done to strengthen UNIFIL. It is part of our policy and we have asked both sides to facilitate its operation. That is something that we could all wish. Our discussions with the Lebanese Government have been confidential, but I do not think that I would be letting anything out if I said that they have not asked us to do anything specific in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has asked.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers in Rome on 5 May, with special reference to the discussion of nuclear missiles.

The NATO Foreign Ministers discussed a wide range of issues of concern to the Allies, including long-range theatre nuclear forces. While emphasising that in present circumstances the modernisation of NATO's long-range theatre nuclear forces remained more essential than ever, they welcomed the intention of the United States to hold negotiations with the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces arms control by the end of the year.

Is the Minister aware that Labour leaders of Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Britain, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, met recently and agreed to refuse the deployment of cruise missiles on their territories independently and unconditionally, and that there is growing support for this view? Does the Minister propose to ignore this opposition?

If the hon. Gentleman is accurate in his description, I think that all those bodies, meeting together, took a very unwise decision. We have explained in the House on a number of occasions—no doubt the matter will be referred to again today—why we believe that we must modernise our theatre nuclear forces in Europe. The Soviet Union has been building up its own theatre nuclear forces at an enormous rate. At the same time, we have said, as the second part of our policy, that we wish to conduct negotiations for the limitation or possible reduction of those forces.

Will my hon. Friend agree that it is truly remarkable that the Soviet Union is always willing to make endless propaganda about disarmament but is always extremely unwilling to do anything positive about it? Was it not clear from the NATO communiqué after the Rome meeting that what NATO wanted was a stable military balance, preferably at a reduced level of forces, and that the only thing that is stopping this is the continued build-up of Soviet forces?

I agree with my hon. Friend. What I also find remarkable is how Labour Members call for negotiations about the unilateral limitation or reduction of nuclear forces, forgetting what Aneurin Bevan said on 3 October 1957 on a resolution not to test, make or use nuclear weapons. He said:

"If you carry this resolution you will send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber."

The Devil can certainly quote scripture to his own purpose. Will the Minister answer the following questions? Is it not the case that the Governments who agreed in December 1979 to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles in 1983 did so, as the Lord Privy Seal told us the other day, on the assumption that the SALT II treaty would be ratified and on condition that purposeful negotiations would start in the near future for a reduction in theatre nuclear forces on both sides? Will the hon. Gentleman support the German Chancellor's demand, which he made on this week's visit to Washington, that the negotiations that have been agreed to begin by the end of the year should be brought well forward, so that the peoples of Europe can judge the prospects?

The American Government have made it clear that they support the continuation of the SALT process. Mr. Brezhnev has said something similar. As regards the timing of the negotiations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces, the communiqué from NATO Foreign Ministers stated that, as far as the United States of America was concerned, they would be initiated before the end of the year. It was also stated that Mr. Haig would have discussions on the exact arrangements in September, when he is to meet Mr. Gromyko.

Will the Minister answer the specific question that I asked—namely, will the Government support the request that the German Chancellor made during his visit to Washington to the effect that the negotiations should be brought well forward?

We hope that the negotiations will take place as soon as possible. The position that NATO Ministers adopted the other day is perfectly reasonable.

Is it not true that NATO is a defensive alliance and that that cannot necessarily be said of the Warsaw Pact? Is it not also true that, until we took a decision to modernise theatre nuclear forces, the Russians were not prepared to discuss arms reductions?

NATO is certainly a defensive alliance. It has been repeatedly stated that the posture of the Soviet Union's armed forces and much of their training is offensive. I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if Her Majesty's Government support the taking of a fresh initiative at this stage toward a reduction of arms levels.

The Government play an active part in the search for realistic and verifiable arms control agreements which will enhance international security. We would gladly support fresh initiatives if we and our allies judged that they would achieve these objectives and that the Soviet Union was prepared to negotiate seriously.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a fresh initiative to reduce arms levels would be timely and that the special United Nations session in 1982 might prove to be an appropriate forum? Does not he further agree that such a move can be effective only if it is based on clear and specific undertakings to reduce arms, with monitoring facilities? Is not it pointless to base ourselves on cloudy and dreamy ideas to the effect that if we lead others will follow?

I agree that the special session of the United Nations, which is intended to be held next year, will be a useful forum. I am not sure whether we need additional fresh initiatives, or whether that was my hon. Friend's suggestion. There are half a dozen forums in which arms control is being negotiated. I agree with my hon. Friend's latter remarks.

What progress has been made in Madrid with the proposals that the French put forward for a conference on disarmament in Europe, with—as the first stage—the extension of confidence building measures for the whole of Europe?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that proposal was supported by the Western allies. Some weeks ago, the Soviet Union said that it would be prepared to consider confidence building measures that extended to the whole of Europe. We are trying to ascertain whether the Soviet Union is prepared to agree to the other aspects of the proposal, which involve verification as well as mandatory and militarily significant measures.

Is the Minister aware—as was implied in his previous answer—that we approve of the American Administration's apparent change of mind about having talks with the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear weapons? Will he confirm that one of the main objectives of the talks will be to secure a reduction in the number of cruise, Pershing II and SS20 missiles on the Continent of Europe?

The objective is to secure a limitation and, if possible, a reduction. As was stated the other day in the NATO communiqué, the deployment of SS20s already exceeds the proposed deployment of theatre nuclear forces by the Western side. Therefore, the Soviet Union has a big lead.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had over recent weeks with representatives of the United States Administration on joint policy towards El Salvador; and if he will make a statement.

I had a general discussion on Central America with officials of the State Department during my recent visit to Washington, and these discussions included El Salvador. We value such exchanges, but we do not have a joint policy towards El Salvador.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following the massacre on 19 April of 24 people by El Salvadorean security forces, the American Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended that no further American aid should be provided to El Salvador until improvements had been made in human rights? Unless America impresses on the Government of El Salvador the point that it must not practise terrorism, will not all of its declarations against terrorism throughout the world fail to ring true?

What the hon. Gentleman says about the American Congress is true. This House and the whole world would like to do everything possible to end the appalling tragedy of human rights abuse in that unhappy country.

All the same, would it not be quite a good thing if my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend were to use those diplomatic skills for which they are properly acclaimed to distance themselves just a little from American policy in El Salvador? After all, it is not as if the Americans are all that keen on supporting us in some of our little local difficulties.

As I said in my initial reply, we do not have a joint policy towards El Salvador. The Americans are assisting the Government of El Salvador in terms of economic and military aid. We are not supplying weapons or economic aid to either side.

Now that the Minister has wisely dissociated the Government from American policy in El Salvador, will he welcome the restriction that the American Congress has placed on the granting of military aid to the Government of El Salvador? In addition, will he support the efforts of the Governments of Mexico and of Venezuela to solve that appalling civil war by means of negotiations between representatives of both sides?

The right hon. Gentleman would be more convincing if he also called on the Communist bloc to cease supplying arms to the insurgents.

Since I gather that the United Kingdom has neither an embassy nor consular representation in El Salvador, on what sources do the Government depend for an up-to-date appraisal of the situation?

We have diplomatic relations with El Salvador, although our ambassador is not resident and is based in San Jośe, in Costa Rica. We receive regular information from him as well as from other countries that are represented in El Salvador.

Does my hon, Friend agree that the only sensible policy is to encourage the forces within El Savador to hold elections so that the people can choose their Government? Will my hon. Friend work with the United States of America to get the Government, the Right wing and the Left wing, in El Salvador to choose that course instead of continual warfare and bloodshed?

As usual, my hon. Friend has got it right. The only person calling for, and trying to arrange elections in El Salvador, is President Napoleon Duarte, who has set up an electoral commission and who hopes to arrange elections during 1982. That must be the right solution. Therefore, we must encourage him and help him in every way to ensure that those elections take place.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many political co-operative meetings have been held on the Middle East since the launching of the European Economic Community initiative.

The Middle East has been on the agenda at approximately 20 political co-operation meetings, including meetings between Ministers, as well as meetings between officials.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether during these political, co-operative, meetings, British officials have had the opportunity of meeting their Syrian counterparts? If so, will they ask the Syrians to reconsider the role that they are playing in Lebanon?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite correct. The political co-operation meetings are entirely composed of members of the Community. They do not involve people from outside.

Would it not be useful for European Community Ministers to suggest to the Israelis that they might talk to the Palestinians, without making stipulations beforehand about who recognises who, where and when?

I have already told the House today, and on many other occasions, that the best way forward would be for the PLO to recognise the existence of Israel and her right to exist within secure borders and for the Israelis on their side to recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinians.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, further to his reply to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch, 21 January, col.255, whether the European Community has considered the implications of the agreement between the United States of America and Japan on limitation of motor car trade in its attempts to moderate Japanese exports to the Community.

The Council of Ministers discussed that subject yesterday in Brussels and adopted a statement of which copies are being made available in the Library. The statement includes calls for an undertaking from the Japanese that there should be no diversion of Japanese cars to the Community following the United States arrangement and analogous measures for exports to the European Community, with special attention being given to member States facing particular difficulties. This includes the continued satisfactory operation of the inter-industry understanding for the United Kingdom.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that any such undertaking should be not merely on an industry-to-industry basis but should require some form of Government involvement, in view of the increased production in Japan and the risk of diversion to which he has referred?

My hon. Friend will appreciate, as he has been taking a consistent interest in this issue for many months, that Community participation in these matters necessarily implies the presence of Governments and that matters are not left just to the trade.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since 1973 British car exports to the EEC have halved and imports from the EEC have gone up by 54 per cent.? Does it not appear that the problems of the car industry rest more with our membership of the Common Market than with Japanese imports?

There is an obvious logical fallacy M what the hon. Gentleman says, because the Community car industries are also suffering from Japanese competition. That wrecks the hon. Gentleman's logic.

In view of the representations that the Government are rightly making to the Japanese about the impact on jobs of the terrible imbalance in trade and manufactures, will the Government also consider making similar representations to the Federal Republic of Germany as last year our deficit in manufactures with that country was twice that with Japan, according to the Minister's figures?

As I explained to my hon. Friend in a written answer, there is a considerable distinction between our trade with Japan and our trade with Germany. Japan's trade surplus with the United Kingdom is concentrated in certain sensitive industrial sectors while the pattern of United Kingdom visible trade with Germany—which is our largest export market—is very different. No one could say that Japan is a large export market. Our deficit with Japan is more than twice our deficit with Germany, on a much smaller volume of trade.

Is it not true that, despite the fact that car imports from Japan have damaged our domestic industry, far greater damage has been inflicted by car imports from France, Germany and Italy? Is it not absurd that the EEC can seek an agreement with Japan on the import of cars but Britain cannot seek bilateral agreements with France, Germany and Italy to stop the damage where it is greatest?

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that imports are damaging, he is returning to the early eighteenth century and adopting a completely merchantilist position. He ignores the fact that the EEC is our largest export market. Does he really want to return to a regime of rigid import controls and bilateral trading such as his party once had? That attitude fits in badly with the Labour Party's pretended concern for the Third world.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what proportion of the time available at ministerial discussions in the Community has been devoted to each of the main subjects considered in the last two months.

No record is kept of the time spent discussing specific topics in the Council of Ministers.

How will the Minister respond to the general assumption and suspicion that in recent months little attention has been given to matters which are of enormous importance to the United Kingdom? How will he respond to those who believe that far more consideration should be given to the arrangements made under article 58 to ensure that the steps taken to assist steel are as helpful to the United Kingdom special steel industry as they have been to West Germany?

I do not agree with either the hon. Gentleman's general assumption or his particular assumption. Coming from the constituency that he does, he must know that what the EEC has decided about steel has been welcomed by both sides of the United Kingdom steel industry.

Are there plans for EEC Ministers to try to hold discussions with the United States' Administration with a view to getting general agreement on a reduction in interest rates? If not, would it not be appropriate for this country to take an initiative?

As far as I know, there are no such plans. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that is more a question for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

As the Council does not keep a record of the time spent discussing certain subjects, does the Lord Privy Seal agree that the time spent by the House on receiving statements from Ministers returning from Council meetings has been reduced in recent weeks, and months? Does not he think that the previous practice should be restored?

I agree that the time given to statements has declined but I assumed that that was in accordance with the general wishes of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

By how long has the change of Presidency in France delayed decisions being taken within the EEC at the moment? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

It is impossible to tell. Over the last week or two there has been no Government in France. Therefore, they have not been able to take decisions. Furthermore, as my hon. Friend knows, there are likely to be legislative elections shortly in France which may delay matters further. I cannot give the timing.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what plans he has to discuss future development of the European Community with his European colleagues; and if he will make a statement.

The major topic relating to the future development of the Community which I expect to discuss with my European colleagues is restructuring of the Community budget. The Commission is producing a report on this in accordance with the agreement of 30 May 1980. That is likely to be discussed at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 and 23 June, and subsequently at the European Council meeting a week later.

In view of Mr. Mitterrand's somewhat belligerent remarks on another important subject during the recent French Presidential election campaign, namely, the common fisheries policy, and his observations on the French attitude hitherto, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no weakening of the United Kingdom position? When are negotiations likely to be resumed?

I assure my hon. Friend that there will be no weakening of the United Kingdom position, but, for the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I cannot give a date for the resumption of negotiations. We stand ready to begin negotiations at any time.

Before the EEC is extended to include Turkey, will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of politely reminding Turkey that its application might be more successful if it were to withdraw its troops now occupying the sovereign State which is a member of the Commonwealth and a signatory to the Helsinki Final Act, of whose integrity and sovereignty Great Britain is a guarantor, namely, the State of Cyprus?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is no immediate application by Turkey to join the EEC and it is not eligible to do so because there are no parliamentary and democratic institutions in that country at present. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the desirability of a settlement in Cyprus. He will know that inter-communal talks are taking place under the auspices of the United Nations. We give those talks our full support and hope that after the elections of both sides in Cyprus the talks will make considerable progress.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear, in the talks taking place within the EEC, the Government's concern to deal with an urgent matter that concerns the whole world, namely, the taking of concerted measures to deal with the menace of international terrorism?

I agree with my hon. Friend that international terrorism is a considerable menace. He will know the Government's position on that. It is shared by all the other members of the EEC.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that we shall look to the Government to press for fundamental reforms in the talks on the restructuring of the budget, including the point that Britain should not have to contribute more to the budget than it receives? Is he further aware that we believe that much less should be spent on the CAP and that budgetary arrangements that apply for regional policy and the social fund should apply also to the CAP? What proposals do the Government have, or is it another case of the Foreign Office having neither the will nor the imagination to put forward any constructive proposals?

There are a number of non sequiturs in that question. It is remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman should complain about our contribution to the EEC budget when we remember that while he was at the Treasury nothing was done to improve or rectify the position. We have achieved a two-thirds reduction in our contribution. I do not propose to set out our negotiating position. There is a later question on the Order Paper relating to that subject.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although the CAP, the fisheries issue and the weight of heavy lorries are important matters, it is even more important to work for greater cohesion and collaboration in reaching common defence and foreign policies with the EEC?

I agree with my hon. Friend that we wish to have as many common policies as possible for greater convergence and integration. That is certainly true of foreign policy, but my hon. Friend will agree that NATO must remain the proper forum for defence policies.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has recently been made in attempts towards further integration within the European Economic Community.

As an integral member of the Community we have played a full part in all Community discussions. The House reviewed recent progress in the Community in the debate on 8 April on the White Paper on Developments in the European Community, July to December 1980.

Has my right hon. Friend read the recent outstanding speech by our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in which he drew attention to the benefits that integration within the Community has already brought to this country? Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues to make similar speeches, and does he agree that the greater the integration within the Community, the greater will be the benefits that accrue to this country?

I certainly agree with the final part of my hon. Friend's question. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was outstanding. [Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) will read it in full. It is not for me to encourage my colleagues as to what speeches they should make, but I am sure that they will have read my right hon. Friend's speech and profited from it.

How does the Lord Privy Seal see the future of European regional policy? Does he think that the regional fund is an important element in economic convergence and, if so, how can it be so without an increase in the budget?

I agree that the regional fund is important. It is difficult to say how I expect it to work out, because much will obviously depend on the progress that we make in restructuring.

Will my right hon. Friend use his high authority to seek to dissuade hon. Members from using words such as "integration" in this context, because they are not terms of art in constitutional law and practice and are merely cloudy generalisations which do not serve to illumine the matter? Is it not correct that the terms of reference of the EEC are drawn under the EEC Treaty and should they not so remain?

My right hon. and learned Friend is a very great authority on these matters and my colleagues and I will bear his wise remarks in mind.

Will the Lord Privy Seal bear in mind that there is strong hostility to any integration with, or subjugation to, the Common Market, not least in the House, and that he has no authority for claiming that there is a general wish for fewer statements to be made to the House? Is he aware that such statements are a form of scrutiny and an opportunity for hon. Members to question Government action so that there is no back-door integration or subjugation?

The fact that the hon. Gentleman can use the words "integration" and "subjugation" as being almost interchangeable suggests that he does not understand the meaning of at least one of them. I take his point, but I do not believe that we suffer from lack of scrutiny or discussion of European issues.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the Government's policy on the proposal for a new treaty of European union to underpin European political cooperation and an emphasis on the need to include security considerations in discussions about such co-operation, as put forward in recent speeches by Herr Genscher and Signor Colombo.

The Government support Herr Genscher's wish to renew the Community's political impetus and to strengthen political co-operation, but they are not convinced that a new treaty is necessary for this. As to security, there is already some discussion of security matters by the Ten in the context of CSCE, and at the United Nations where they work to align their positions on disarmament questions. We would welcome wider consideration of the political aspects of security by the Ten. But we believe that defence and military aspects must remain the responsibility of NATO.

Reverting to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), and with due respect to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), may I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal agrees that effective action against international terrorism requires an integration of resources over, for example, the pooling of police facilities and effectively policed action against third countries harbouring terrorists, going well beyond normal political co-operation between Governments? Is not the EEC the ideal framework for such joint action?

I agree in general with my hon. Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would say that integration was the wrong word in this context, but I do not think that we need worry so much about words as about facts. There is great co-operation within the EEC on counter-terrorism matters and the EEC Ministers and officials responsible for that meet regularly to discuss and co-ordinate policies. We certainly expect that to happen during our Presidency.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the co-operation to which he referred in his answer is outside the terms of the Treaty of Rome? If that is so, why should it not continue if the House ceased to be subjugated to that Treaty?

It is political co-operation among members of the Community which have subscribed to the Treaty of Rome. If any country left the Community, it would be extremely unlikely that it would be able to take part in the political co-operation among its former partners.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for defence procurement policy being dealt with on a joint basis? Will he inquire into the funding that was allocated about four years ago for joint helicopter research and development which, at the time, seemed to point towards much greater co-operation in that area?

I shall make the inquiry for which my hon. Friend has asked. I agree that there are aspects of defence industries that can be dealt with by the EEC, but I stick to my main point that defence in general should remain within the province of NATO.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with the objectives of adjusting the Community's institutions to modern requirements.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in recent months on the revision of the Community's procedures.

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 which were agreed will be implemented.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that in the age of economic nationalism, chauvinism in the Labour Party, and increasing isolationism among Left wingers in this country, it would be a good idea for all member States but particularly our own, to give renewed encouragement to the work of the Commission in creating a genuine common market? If the quid pro quo for less EEC legislation for harmonisation purposes is to be agreed, surely that must lead to greater encouragement by the Council of Ministers for the Commission's vital and essential work in creating a truly united Europe.

As my hon. Friend knows, we have made clear our views on harmonisation. I entirely agree with what he says about the important role of the Commission. It is for the Commission to put forward proposals and for the Council then to discuss and decide for or against them. I entirely agree that the proposing role by the Commission is absolutely vital.

Will my right hon. Friend also agree that, unfortunately, the general view of the Community is not "What does it do for us, but what does it do to us?" For this to change Community institutions and practices must also change. What progress does my right hon. Friend hope to make in creating these changes during the six months of Britain's Presidency?

I doubt whether institutional reform will be high on the agenda because, as I have already told the House and as my hon. Friend will be aware, restructuring will take up a great deal of the time, energy and thought of all member States. I am doubtful about how much institutional reform there will be, although there restructuring will take up a great deal of the time, energy and thought of all member States. I am doubtful about how much institutional reform there will be, although there may be some in political co-operation. I shall naturally bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. I agree with him that Community institutions, like all institutions, evolve with the times.