asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek a meeting with the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the future of the United Nations Eucational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

We see no advantage in this step. The United Nations specialised agencies are autonomous, and we shall do best by continuing to put across our views on UNESCO effectively and directly to the Director General and his staff, as we do now.

Through those and any other channels available to him, will my hon. Friend miss no opportunity to reiterate to the Director General and others that it is no part of the Government's policy to involve themselves or encourage other Governments to involve themselves in controlling the freedom of the press or broadcasting to report news fairly and without bias? Will he also reiterate that it is the Government's policy not to fund any part of the UNESCO operation or programmes likely to bend such freedom?

That is exactly right. We are worried about those developments and have taken the lead in pointing out to our friends and allies the dangers of any steps within UNESCO to undermine the freedom of the press.

Although the United Kingdom national commission and the Government have rightly been critical of the UNESCO proposals for the media world-wide, is it not dangerous for Governments to decide not to fund that part of an international organisation with which from time to time they may disagree?

We pay our share of the UNESCO budget, but we are perfectly entitled to point out within UNESCO activities that we believe should or should not be supported.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the new United Nations fund to promote scientific and technological activities in the Third world and developing countries, which has a budget target of $250 million, of which so far only $40 million has been raised, primarily from OPEC countries? The United Kingdom Government have so far not given any money to the fund. Will my hon. Friend look into the matter?

I shall certainly look into it and write to my hon. Friend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in discussions as a result of the European initiative which may help resolve the current situation in the Lebanon.

The European Community's efforts to help find a basis for a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute continue. Any such settlement, or significant progress towards it, would make it easier to find an answer to Lebanon's problems, but the differences within Lebanon can be settled only by agreement among the parties in that country.

Does my hon. Friend accept the real possibility of an early Israeli attack on Syrian forces in the Bekaa valley and an attempt by Christian Phalangist forces to eliminate the PLO in southern Lebanon? If so, will he consider initiating a Community fact-finding mission to find out what public opinion is in the Lebanon, with the aim of finding a peaceful solution to the problem and eliminating foreign occupation?

My hon. Friend is right about the dangers, and makes an interesting suggestion. However, much is going on already. Mr. Habib is active in tackling the problem between Israel and Syria, the Arab follow-up committee is active in seeking reconciliation generally in the Lebanon and the United Nations is active, with our support, in tackling the problem in the south.

Does the Minister share President Sadat's recently expressed view that, although many factors have contributed to the awful situation in the Lebanon, the Syrians bear the major responsibility?

That is not a fruitful line of approach. The key to the problem is to strengthen the authority of the central Lebanese Government. If we can find ways in which we can help do that, we shall take them.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, to his knowledge, the Lebanese Government invited the Syrians into their country but did not invite the Israelis?

That is so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his European colleagues how offensive the Christian Lebanese find the Israeli pretence to be acting in their defence, both because only a minority of the Christians in Lebanon are supporters of the Fascist Gemayelist policies and because in Israel itself Christian proselytisers are persecuted?

The hon. Gentleman will not draw me into commenting on the internal politics of Lebanon. The answer lies with the Lebanese, in strengthening the authority of the central Government.

rose—

Order. This question comes up several times again.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will visit Cyprus with a view to discussing with the President of the Republic and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community progress towards a settlement.

I have no present plans to do so. The high commission at Nicosia is in regular contact with both parties.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the period between the Turkish Cypriot elections this Sunday and the Greek elections which have now been brought forward to the end of September will provide a unique opportunity for Britain, the United States and Canada, the EEC and other interested countries to apply real pressure to achieve a settlement within that period? Is he further aware that only when the Government of Turkey authorise the Turkish Cypriot community to put forward realistic territorial proposals shall we get anywhere near that settlement, so will he also apply pressure in that direction?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, after the Turkish Cypriot elections there will be a period in which the possibilities of reaching a settlement will be good, or at least better than they have been in the past. I also agree that it will need great effort by all parties to reach an agreement. I am not sure that "pressure" is a right or helpful word in this case, and I am not sure, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman is right to point the finger at the Turkish Government. I believe that the Turkish Government are likely to be helpful in this matter.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the period in which we have the Presidency of the Council would be an ideal opportunity for the Community to take a much higher profile in these matters, particularly in view of the association of Cyprus with the Community?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. He will be aware, however, that intercommunal talks have been taking place under United Nations auspices. I believe that those talks have shown some promise already and that we should stick to that approach.

Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that Britain, as one of the guarantor powers in Cyprus, has a greater responsibility than other countries to take initiatives that will lead to a settlement?

I should be most willing to take initiatives if I thought that that would help. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), however, I believe that the best hope for a settlement lies with the present United Nations intercommunal talks.

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

Recent events in the Middle East show clearly the urgent need for a peaceful and comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute. We and our partners in the Ten remain determined to contribute to such a settlement.

Bearing in mind the unanimous condemnation by the Security Council of the Israeli attack on Iraq and the continuing overwhelming military predominance of Israel in the area, will my hon. Friend do his best to persuade the United States Government to transform their temporary ban on the supply of F16s to Israel into a permanent ban?

That is a matter for them, but it is satisfactory that the Security Council managed to reach a unanimous conclusion in the debate last week. I hope that that will have some effect on policies world-wide, including policies in Israel.

Does the Minister agree that the most important lesson of recent events in the Middle East is the immense danger to world peace in the rapid acceleration of the arms race, conventional as well as nuclear, in the area? Will he consult his colleagues in Europe and in the Atlantic Alliance to see whether some agreement can be reached on halting and reversing that arms race in discussions with the major arms suppliers and with the countries in the area?

That is an ideal, but one which can be realised only with the co-operation of the Soviet Union—which, on past form, is most unlikely to be forthcoming. I draw a slightly different lesson from the events of last week, which is that on the whole it is a mistake for a country to take the law into its own hands in the belief that others will not follow.

Have the Iraqi Government explained to Her Majesty's Government why they needed weapon grade nuclear material, if it was not to produce nuclear weapons?

That was gone into fairly thoroughly in the Security Council and I think that some of the allegations produced by the Israeli Government to justify their attack have been refuted on technical grounds.

Following the latest talks that Mr. van der Klaauw has had with the PLO representative, has he brought to the Council of Ministers any possibility of a modification in the PLO's line of rejecting even the existence of Israel?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the PLO has in the past accepted certain international statemenst which in turn accept the right of Israel to exist. I agree with him, however, that there is a long way to go before we can be satisfied. One of the purposes of the contacts that we occasionally have at official level with the PLO and our discussions with other Arab countries is to bring the PLO to say that if Israel accepted the right of the Palestinians to self-determination the PLO would accept the right of Israel to exist.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if, in view of the failure of the Spanish Government to implement the Lisbon agreement, he will seek further discussions with the Spanish Foreign Minister with a view to reaching a firm date for implementation.

The Spanish Government's commitment to the agreement has been reaffirmed and the Foreign Minister is well aware of our view that the sooner it is implemented the better for all concerned. I doubt whether there is anything to be gained by trying to initiate discussions in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.

I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, but does he agree that the period of 14 months since the Lisbon agreement was signed is absolutely ridiculous? Does he honestly believe that the Spanish Government have any intention of ever implementing the agreement unless they are forced to do so when they apply for accession to the Community in several years' time?

I certainly agree that a period of 14 months is at any rate rather long. We have conveyed to the Spanish Government our regret that the agreement has not so far been implemented and our wish and hope that it will be implemented before long. I do not accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that we shall have to wait until Spain tries to join the Community, but I fully understand his impatience.

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is hardly a dynamic response. The Lisbon agreement was signed 14 months ago. How many direct representations have been made to the Spanish Government and what action does he now propose to take?

It was not intended to be a dynamic response. I do not believe that dynamic responses are necessarily the best way to proceed in these matters. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been a number of contacts with the Spanish Government, and they are continuing. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to be specific about them, but I reiterate the Government's wish and hope that the Spanish Government will carry out the agreement that they entered into.

I think that most of us would wish to see a democratic Spain join NATO and the European Community, but will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Spanish Government that we could not accept that so long as the blockade of Gibraltar continues?

I think that I have often stated in the House that the idea of two countries in the Community with a closed frontier between them is unthinkable.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is planning any fresh initiatives in regard to the Arab-Israeli dispute; and if he will make a statement.

The Ten are considering how to carry forward European efforts during our Presidency in the light of Mr. van der Klaauw's report to his colleagues on his consultations with the parties. No decisions have been taken, but we remain committed to working for a comprehensive peace in the Middle East on the basis of the principles of the Venice declaration.

With the Israeli general election about to take place, do the Government believe that now would be an appropriate time for the PLO to state clearly that problems with Israel should be discussed peacefully and solved through peaceful negotiation and that informal contacts could then lead to meaningful negotiations?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) has just made clear, our wish is to see a reciprocal undertaking and, in particular, to persuade the PLO to make the conditional declaration to which my hon. Friend referred.

Does not the Minister agree that what matters most to the Arab countries of the Middle East is not what the Americans decribe as the "threat from the East", but rather the failure so far to obtain justice for the Palestinian people? When the Minister discusses these matters with the Americans, will he make that clear to them? If it is not made clear, the prospect of any solution in the Middle East will be even remoter than what it appears at present.

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, although there is an East-West aspect to most of these subjects, the problem on the ground is what matters. The American Administration are well aware that the Israeli-Arab problem is central to Middle Eastern affairs, and that is certainly our view.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the main problem on the ground is the fantastic number of armaments now in the Middle East? Is it not the case that East and West are building a tinder box which could explode at any moment? If the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) wants a new, worthwhile initiative rather than the Venice initiative, surely this is the time to ask the major Powers to consider Israel's own proposal that there should be a nuclear weapon-free zone in the area and, secondly, that there should be talks among all the major Powers concerned about supplying offensive weapons to the area?

I sympathise with what my right hon. Friend has said, but I cannot agree that securing disarmament in the area is more important than securing peace. The trouble is that the Middle East is already a tinder box, as recent events have shown. A nuclear-free area would be a good thing, and one of the first steps towards achieving that would be that all countries in the Middle East, including Israel, should sign the non-proliferation treaty.

Is it not now quite clear that the Camp David agreements provide no basis for peace in the Middle East? As it appears to be President Reagan's policy to appease Zionist aggression, and bearing in mind the fact that Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East, is it not time for a much stronger European initiative that is independent of American policy?

The achievement of the Camp David agreements in bringing peace between Israel and Egypt was enormous, and I am sure that everyone in the House welcomes that. It is true that there has not been parallel progress in negotiations on the Palestinian part of the agreements, and something more than autonomy may well now be required. Obviously, we shall discuss this matter with our American allies, but I do not think it does any good to criticise them in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has done.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he proposes to take any new initiatives in connection with civil rights for the black community in South Africa.

No, Sir. But we shall continue to take every opportunity to stress to the South African Government our strong conviction that lasting peace in that country depends on rapid progress towards the extension of full political and civil rights to all South Africans of whatever race.

Will the Government go even further and call upon British firms with South African connections—such as British Leyland and Rowntrees, with its subsidiary in South Africa, which doles out large sums of money to the Social Democratic Party and the Liberals—to stop their brutal form of apartheid by paying starvation wages to the black South Africans?

The hon. Gentleman takes a remarkably unconstructive attitude towards this problem. It would be healthy if more of us spent more time dwelling on those British companies in South Africa that are trying to take a lead by providing extra opportunities for black people. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would spend more time thinking about that.

Are not these foreign affairs questions, and is it not the main duty of the British Government to look after British interests in the whole of southern Africa rather than to make unproductive and useless comments on other matters?

I entirely agree.

Does the Minister recall the tough line taken by the Government over British participation in the Olympic Games? However, when it comes to sporting contacts with South Africa, sporting organisations seem to receive only a mild rebuke, followed by a wink and a nod from the Minister responsible for sport to go ahead. Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is a perpetual invasion of the human rights of the coloured population in South Africa by police armed with guns and tear gas? Is it not time that the Government took an equally tough line in this respect?

Our approach over the Olympics and South Africa has been entirely consistent. Whether with regard to the Olympics or under the Gleneagles agreement on South Africa, we have sought to use whatever means we can to persuade sportsmen not to participate. However, we are a democracy and we believe in individual liberty. Consequently, we believe that it is wrong to use Government powers to prevent sportsmen from exercising their rights.

Does not my hon. Friend agree that attempts to persuade the Government to engage in a boycott of South African sport merely undermines the efforts of those who have achieved a great deal in moving towards multi-racial sport in South Africa, as would have been the case on the football field?

It would be churlish, wrong and highly irresponsible not to acknowledge evidence that change has taken place in South Africa. Although that may still be on a modest scale, it is nevertheless happening. While we are fully committed to the Gleneagles agreement, as soon as there is clear evidence of greater integration on the sporting field, that will be the time to review that agreement.

Does not the Minister agree that it is now time for the British and other Western Governments, especially the United States, to take a much tougher line on civil rights in South Africa? Does he not also agree that the greatest danger to peace in southern Africa, the surest magnet for insurrection and subversion in South Africa, and the greatest danger to Britain's commercial and strategic interests in South Africa lie with the evil regime in Pretoria?

It is self-evident that it is in the interests of the West to explain to the South African Government that, so long as government is not based on the consent of all the people concerned, there is likely to be instability. Therefore, it is as much in the interests of the South African Government and people that there should be change. That is the task and objective of Britain and other Western Governments.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to discuss detente with the Soviet Foreign Minister.

We are ready to discuss the international situation with Soviet leaders whenever we think it would be useful.

Does the Minister accept that that is an evasive reply to my question? Does he agree that no subject in the world is more important than detente, which means peace for the whole of mankind? Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid using political prejudice or bias as an excuse for not speaking to the Soviet Foreign Minister? Will he also note that sabre rattling, be it from the British Prime Minister or the American President, is not helpful? Therefore, will he use his good offices to ensure that the Government fully represent the wishes of the British people by discussing detente with the Soviet Foreign Minister, in the interests of peace for all?

We are never evasive in these matters and we certainly do not believe in rattling sabres. Detente is important if it is genuine, and it has been the Government's objective to ensure that detente is reciprocal and mutual rather than one-sided. That policy is supported by the vast majority of British people.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the story of the last 20 or more years shows that, despite the Soviet Union's well-advertised proposals on detente and disarmament, just about every proposal has broken down because Russia has refused to allow adequate inspection and verification.

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that an arms control proposal is worth nothing unless it is fully verifiable. I entirely agree with him.

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that SALT I and SALT II included quite adequate provisions for inspection and verification? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the disturbing evidence given yesterday to the American Congress by the newly nominated head of the arms control and disarmament agency, Mr. Gene Rostow, in which he said that the United States of America should entirely abandon the SALT negotiations? He made it clear that he had not the slightest idea what to put in their place and that he would not have any idea for at least nine months. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman told the House during our last foreign affairs debate, does he not agree that, if the American Government took that line, it would destroy the very assumption on which the decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe was taken, 18 months ago?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a bit too early to draw drastic conclusions from what was said yesterday in Congress. Indeed, we have not yet done so. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the American Government have agreed to talks with the Russians about theatre nuclear forces in Europe. That is an important first step. Mr. Haig will be meeting Mr. Gromyko in September. It is too early to go beyond that.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, during our last foreign affairs debate, he told the House that the decision of the NATO countries to modernise their theatre nuclear forces depended on the assumption that SALT II would be ratified? If the whole SALT process is to be abandoned, we must take it that that decision can no longer be considered operative.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say "depended". I said that it was "taken in the context". The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at that stage—before the invasion of Afghanistan—everyone thought that SALT II would be ratified by the Senate. Obviously, we should have preferred it if SALT II had been ratified and if Afghanistan had not been invaded. However, that was not the case. I do not agree that the decision about theatre nuclear forces is made obsolete or nugatory by what happened to the SALT negotiations. That decision is necessary for Europe and I should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to agree with that.

As detente clearly means different things to different countries, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the USSR could take a useful and constructive first step towards our meaning of that word by joining in an agreement to combat international terrorism? Has any progress been made on that subject at the reconvened Madrid conference?

Progress has been slow. My hon. Friend will appreciate that such an international agreement would be difficult. However, there is considerable co-operation among many Western Governments, and that is welcome. My hon. Friend will also be aware that terrorism comes from many quarters.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the Government's policy regarding the receipt of representations from minority groups within a sovereign State or States, alleging persecution or claiming a right to independence, such as the Kurds.

We would normally take note of any representations made to us so that we can decide whether Britain could play a legitimate and helpful role.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful reply. What does he perceive to be the moral and practical distinction between the Palestinians' demand for self-determination and the similar demand made by the Kurds? Has he made any representations on such matters to the Iraqi Government?

The difference is that the question of self-determination for the Palestinians lies at the heart of a major and festering international dispute. Rightly or wrongly, that is not true of the Kurdish question.

Has my hon. Friend received many representations on the persecution of the Bahais in Iran? If so, has he managed to verify the accusations made about such persecutions and, if so, does he propose to take any action either separately on behalf of the Government, or collectively, through our partners in the EEC, or the United Nations?

We have received many representations on this subject from hon. Members. In all these matters, we must judge whether we can do anything that will help those concerned. It must be remembered that there is a widespread—but entirely wrong—impression in Iran that in the past the Bahais have been used for British political purposes. We must take that impression into account when deciding what could usefully be done. We are in touch with our partners among the Ten to weigh up the evidence that my hon. Friend has referred to, and to see whether, together, there is something that we could usefully do.

Have we taken every opportunity, such as the Lord Privy Seal's visit to Turkey, to make representations to the Government there to the effect that most British people heartily dislike the idea of political prisoners and their persecution? Did we ask the Turkish Government whether they intended to set a date for the return of political democracy? It does not lend credibility to the Turkish Government to pretend that they are defending democracy in NATO when they do not practise it at home.

The Turkish Government have given specific undertakings on that matter to my right hon. Friend and in public. We take those assurances seriously and believe that they will be honoured.

Does the Minister realise that the situation affecting the Bahai community in Iran is one of the greatest urgency? Will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the Government's investigations will be carried out with corresponding urgency? Furthermore, what representations, if any, have been made about the oppression of the Kurdish community in Iraq? If none have been made, why not?

Again, we must judge in each case whether anything that we said would prove useful. I pointed out the background in relation to the Bahais. It is a question not so much of investigation but of deciding what can be usefully done. The same point applies to the Kurds in Iraq.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what is the policy of the United Kingdom towards the proposed South Atlantic pact between South Africa, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil; and if he is satisfied that British interests will not be adversely affected.

We have seen press reports on this matter. The proposal was apparently discussed at a private meeting and it would be inappropriate for me to comment. There are no indications that British interests would be adversely affected.

Has the Minister seen reports to the effect that security and defence experts from the United States of America, Argentina, Brazil and other South American countries met last month in Buenos Aires to discuss a possible South Atlantic pact? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that Britain is hostile to such an ill-conceived alliance, which would almost certainly do nothing for security in the area and which would alienate the whole of black Africa?

I have seen the same press reports as the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he has seen the press report from South Africa to the effect that General Malan recently denied that there would be any South African participation in the conference or that there were any negotiations at present with any countries on such issues. We must have more detail before we can form a view.

Although I share my hon. Friend's ignorance about this proposal would not he agree that the Tropic of Cancer is an obsolete frontier in terms of the maritime defence of the West? Is not there a need for a South Atlantic defence organisation? Would not the Falkland Islands be a suitable headquarters for it?

I think that the point is that the meeting was a private one and not a governmental meeting. We cannot comment on what private individuals may have said in a private meeting. The question of the Falkland Islands is hardly relevant at this stage, because as my hon. Friend knows, there is no question of us taking part in any such defence pact.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the contact group on Namibia subsequent to the American initiative.

The United States Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. William Clark, has recently held discussions with the Governments of South Africa and Zimbabwe and with representatives of the internal parties in Namibia. Consultations among the Western Five are continuing, with a view to developing proposals likely to facilitate a settlement.

Has the much more realistic policy of the new American Administration on this issue got the full support of the Government? Has the question of an independent Ovamboland on either side of the Namibian/ Angolan border been considered?

My hon. Friend knows that part of the world well. The American Government's efforts in their discussions in Southern Africa to see whether it is possible to strengthen resolution 435 have the fullest possible support of the British Government and of the other three contact group Western Powers. As regards Ovamboland, I am not in a position to say, but this point might have arisen in the discussions. I expect the group of five to meet shortly to discuss the outcome of the probings in Southern Africa.

Will the Minister please stop using the language of "Nineteen Eighty-four" in speaking about strengthening resolution 435, when the clear intention of the American Government is to weaken resolution 435? Cannot the Government come clean and say how they intend to see resolution 435 applied and what they will do to ensure that the South African Government comply with it?

Since the United States Government and the Western group of five have not yet come forward with proposals, I cannot see how the hon. Gentleman supposes that that will weaken resolution 435. The five Western Foreign Ministers, including the United States Minister, agreed in Rome on 5 May that resolution 435 was a solid basis for progress in Namibia and that we would seek to strengthen the plan to enable us to achieve agreement with all the parties and a peaceful settlement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what formal arrangements exist for European Economic Community Foreign Ministers to meet in special session when an important development in foreign affairs on which European Economic Community States take a common view occurs, such as the Israeli attack in Iraq in the context of the European Economic Community initiative in the Middle East.

The Foreign Minister holding the Presidency can, either on his initiative or at the suggestion of another member, seek his colleagues' agreement to a meeting at short notice.

Does the Minister agree that the recent attack on Iraq was an act of international gangsterism such as we have come to expect from the Israelis? Is it not time that the Government realised that because of the power of the Zionist lobby in America, a settlement cannot be delivered in the Middle East? Will the Government therefore proceed with the European initiative, and, possibly, seek the co-operation of the Soviet Union, too, in bringing about a settlement in that area?

The hon. Gentleman is a little behind events. As soon as the raid took place, there was an immediate discussion both in the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna and in the Security Council in New York. The Ten acted closely and successfully together on both those occasions and in the Security Council, contrary to the impression that the hon. Gentleman seeks to create, the United States went along with the strong resolution.

Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the date on which Iraq has signed a ceasefire agreement, or armistice with Israel since 1948? Would it not be a good idea if our EEC partners tried to get the two parties together?

Absolutely, and that is why we took the initiative in the Venice Declaration. Iraq has not conducted military operations against Israel for a long time and she has signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Have the European Foreign Ministers received any intimation that Israel is even considering signing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty or that it is prepared to allow international inspection of the nuclear plant at Dimona?

No, Sir. If she took either of those moves than would be large steps forward.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that those who seek to threaten the people of Israel with a second holocaust should not be surprised at the consequences? Will Her Majesty's Government now take up with the Government of France, as a matter of urgency the recklessness and irresponsibility of that Government in supplying weapons grade uranium to a self-proclaimed belligerent Power? Will the Government urge on President Mitterand that the fuel should be caramelised so that it cannot be used for weapons purposes, which is the avowed aim of the President of Iraq?

The quotations put in the mouth of the President of Iraq by the Israelis in justifying the raid have proved not to be correct. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is "No, Sir".

Disgraceful.

In reply to the first part of the supplementary question, it is a pity that some Israelis continue to use the tragic memories of the holocaust as a justification for breaking international law.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will seek during the British Presidency of the European Community to strengthen the role of the European Commission in developing joint European policies, particularly in relations with third countries.

Under the treaties the Commission already has a major role in the development of Community policies in the external field under the common commercial policy. It also has a substantial part to play in the implementation of those policies. During the United Kingdom Presidency, we intend to work in close co-operation with the Commission in all areas of Community policy, including the Community's external relations.

Is it not becoming ever clearer that Britain, like the other members of the EEC, is dismally incapable of getting a good bargain out of third countries such as Japan? Yet we persist in acting alone. Would we not get a better bargain for ourselves and the other members of the EEC if we were to entrust to the Commission the role that was originally assigned to it, which was that of negotiating foreign trade agreements?

I largely agree with my hon. Friend, except that I think he will agree that the arrangements we already have with Japan on an industry-by-industry basis should not be given up until there is something equally as strong, if not stronger, to put in its place. I agree that the Community as a body is a stronger negotiating agent than we are by ourselves. Therefore the more the Community can negotiate on a united basis, the better for all concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when the Prime Minister attends the summit meeting of the Community later this week she will support the view of the other major European countries that the capital of the World Bank should be doubled, and that nothing would do more to help the Third world countries in their present dangerous situation than a concerted European effort to get down interest rates and the exchange rate of the dollar, which is inflicting far greater burdens on the Third world than the increase in oil prices?

As I understand it, the capital of the World Bank has already been doubled and my right hon. Friend would not wish to go back on that decision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is important. The Foreign Affairs Council discussed it the other day. I do not think that the European Council would be best employed in spending too much time on United States' financial policies. If need be, that can be discussed at the Ottawa summit.

The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the advice that his hon. Friend was trying to give him. It is true that when I was Chancellor I succeeded in getting the capital of the World Bank doubled. Now, more than two years later, there is a proposal to double it again. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the Prime Minister supports those proposals?

The Prime Minister and the Government are extremely concerned about the North-South problem, but I cannot anticipate what decisions will be made in the European Council.

During the British Presidency, will the Government try to achieve a united approach with the Japanese, something that we have not been able to obtain in five years, instead of the Japanese being allowed to import to the destruction of all countries because the EEC can never agree about anything?

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's conclusion. The Community has made progress and under our Presidency we shall endeavour to build on what has been achieved.

Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that foreign policy is not mentioned in the basic treaties of the European Community, that it is a matter for member States acting individually or collectively, and, in no circumstances is if a matter, as implied by his hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), for the European Commission?

I do not think that that was implied by my hon. Friend. Trading policy is a matter for the European Community, and the Community has been successful in it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that considerable progress has been made in European political co-operation, and we welcome such progress.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will clarify the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the enlargement of the European Economic Community.

There is no lack of clarity. We have consistently supported the membership of Portugal and Spain, as we did the accession of Greece.

Is the Minister aware that at the last count from the Department of Employment, there were 620,000 adult Common Market nationals living in Britain, of whom 410,000 were at work, compared with only 80,000 British nationals working in the EEC? Is it sane or sensible for the Government to sign a treaty that will give an unrestricted right to millions of Spaniards to live, work and enjoy welfare services in the United Kingdom when unemployment has reached such horrific proportions?

That is a matter for the Treaty of Accession that is signed between Spain and Portugal and the Community. But I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his great interest in these matters, will appreciate, as the previous Labour Government appreciated, the very considerable political value that there is for the West in reinforcing democracy in Spain and encouraging and welcoming Spanish entry into the Community.

Will the Minister accept that there are many reservations by people about the enlargement of the EEC, particularly bearing in mind the effect that enlargement may well have on the textile and clothing industries? Will the Minister assure the House that in any enlargement there will be secure and safe arrangements to prevent disruption and loss of jobs in the British clothing and textile industry, which is, as he knows, already suffering markedly from the present loss of jobs?

I do not think that there are many reservations about that. Even the representatives of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, which is not notably European-minded, visited the Foreign Office recently in order to urge Spanish entry. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there should be safeguards. I have assured him about that before, and I am sure that he is aware of the position.

Will my right hon. Friend also confirm that Spanish entry can be achieved without undermining and endangering the basic interests of the British wine industry and the legal designation of British sherry?

Yes, I am sure that that is true.

Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), is it not the case, even today, without the free entry of workers, that the hotel and catering industry has been inundated with Spanish workers, to the detriment of unemployed British workers? Is it not the case that if Spain is entitled to take advantage of the free flow of labour, we shall have hotel and catering workers from Spain flooding the British hotel and catering industry?

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that it is happening already and that it will be worse in the future. I do not believe that the Spaniards are taking jobs that British workers wish to have.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he is now in a position to state what initiatives he intends to take when he assumes the Presidency of the Council of European Economic Community Ministers.

The Government's general objective when the United Kingdom assumes the Presidency will be to manage business efficiently and to contribute to the development of practical and constructive policies in the Community. Foremost among the issues to be dealt with during our Presidency will be work on the restructuring of the Community budget under the agreement of 30 May 1980. Other priorities will include the accession negotiations with Portugal and Spain and improvements in the working of political co-operation among the Ten.

Will my right hon. Friend agree that the setting up of a secretariat attached to the Council of Ministers will be high on the agenda during the next six months, particularly in view of the importance of greater co-operation on foreign policy within the Community?

As my hon. Friend will be aware, that was suggested by my right hon. and noble Friend in his Hamburg speech, and the Dutch Presidency has been gathering ideas for the implementation of the proposal. These will be discussed by political directors early in our Presidency, and we hope that agreement between member States will be forthcoming so that the improvements can be effected as soon as possible.

Is the Minister aware that many of us do not believe that either he or the Foreign Office has the will or the imagination to propose any reforms in relation to the Common Market? Is it not the case that, with the Foreign Office's vested interest in the status quo and its lack of desire to hurt or offend anybody—and with the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food having apparently sold out to Sir Henry Plumb on the common agricultural policy—we are not likely to get any fundamental reforms either of the CAP or the Common Market budget?

I have expressed to the House several times my bewilderment and surprise that the right hon. Gentleman can go on saying this when he achieved absolutely nothing while he was at the Treasury. He blissfully ignores the fact that we achieved a good deal in the 30 May agreement, and that the Commission today is producing proposals for restructuring, and that these will be discussed during our Presidency.

Will my right hon. Friend comment upon the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for a five-year plan for the reform of the CAP? Would it not be advantageous to British farmers if we were instead to have either a 10-year or a 20-year plan for the reform of the CAP?

I would not wish to bandy years with my hon. Friend. As he will be aware, the Commission is producing proposals for restructuring, and presumably proposals on the reform of the CAP today, so perhaps it would be better to postpone discussions on this matter until a later day, if not a later year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Labour Party National Executive Committee delegation went to see him about initiatives concerning Spain, one of them was not Spain's entry into the Common Market? We made it clear that that was a matter for Spain, and that we were concerned to defend democracy in Spain. We urged the Government to give every backing to those in Spain who were fighting for democracy, as against those who were trying to overthrow it.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is true. We were concerned to further democracy. But I thought that there was also general agreement that one of the ways of achieving that objective was to facilitate Spanish entry into the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what time scale is planned for the implementation of the European Council's decisions on institutional reform of the European Economic Community.

No deadline has been set, but we intend, during the United Kingdom Presidency, to implement those proposals which are agreed as soon as it is appropriate to do so.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the reforms that are needed will be accelerated as soon as possible doming the British Presidency and that we shall aim to draw attention to the absurd situation in which the most costly foods in the world are made available to Communist countries at the taxpayers' expense.

On the first question, I agree with my hon. Friend, and we shall try to speed things up as much as possible. As my hon. Friend knows, these are fundamental matters, and it may take some time.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that two major proposals for reform of the CAP and the budget may well be expected during the British Presidency of the Council? Will he undertake to produce the Government's responses to these proposals prior to any debate that ought to take place in the House before those proposals are discussed by representatives on the Council?

As I have already told the House, and as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Commission is producing its proposals this afternoon. I do not believe that it would be right for the Government to set out their negotiating position in a White Paper. It is probably not very good negotiating tactics when negotiating with one party, but when negotiating with nine parties and the Commission I am sure that it is not the right way in which to proceed.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will approach the proposals of the Commission in a positive and constructive manner, and that these proposals are likely to contain many aspects of interest and positive advantage to the United Kingdom, and other factors which were not mentioned or apparently considered by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food?

I did not quite follow my hon. Friend's reference to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. My hon. Friend will appreciate that we have only just received the Commission's report, which is a complex and important document. We shall be approaching it in a positive spirit. Obviously, we shall have to study the report very carefully. We greatly appreciate the efforts that the Commission has made.

Is it not the case that the traditional role of the Presidency is to seek compromises—and sometimes rather wet compromises—between all member States, and not to push the interests of the member State that happens to be holding the Presidency? In view of that, does it not follow that having the Presidency of the Commission will mean that we shall be less able to stand up and fight for British interests?

I do not know what conclusions cart be drawn from that question, except that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks that we should have decided not to accept the Presidency. In any event, he will be aware that under his Government the Presidency was not a raging success. We shall hope to do better. But, as I stated in one of my earlier answers, to which the right hon. Gentleman may not have listened, it is the primary job of the Presidency to further Community business.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he intends to meet European Economic Community Foreign Ministers to discuss Community affairs.

At the next Foreign Affairs Council on 13 and 14 July.

Will my right hon. Friend take advantage of that opportunity to discuss with his colleagues the disclosure by a Member of the European Assembly that about 100 Members of that organisation are sleeping in their offices and claiming £50 of taxpayers' money?

I really do not think that where Members of the European Parliament spend the night is a matter for me.