asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the discussions to achieve a just solution of the Palestinian problem; and what steps have been taken to involve the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The European Council decided that the Ten's efforts should be pursued energetically and without respite. We are considering the next steps carefully and shall continue to do our best to make a genuine contribution to peace. We keep in close touch with Jordan, and I had talks with the King and several of his Ministers over the weekend. Jordan has a key role to play in a settlement, but the Jordanians are clear that the Palestinians and their representatives cannot be bypassed if lasting peace is to be achieved.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply, to which I cannot take great exception. But does he not agree that, as Jordan has such a key role to play, it would be advisable to bring it into the peace negotiation process, along with Israel and elements of the Palestinian Arabs who may renounce their avowed intention to destroy Israel? Does he not think that if that kind of tripartite organisation were got going there could be a just and lasting peace in the area?

I have much sympathy with the way that the hon. Gentleman puts that point. It is precisely because it is necessary to broaden the existing discussions to include some, if not all, of those whom he mentions that we Europeans have been active in trying to create a framework in which that could happen.

Is it not time for the Government to admit that the built-in contradictions in the Venice declaration, as long as it exists, disable this country from making any contribution to peace in the Middle East?

No, Sir. The further we move from the Venice declaration the more clearly we see that the principles laid down in that declaration, taken together, must provide the basis for any comprehensive settlement, and that without such a settlement we shall continue to see the flare-ups now being experienced.

My hon. Friend has rightly condemned the savage bombing attack on Beirut. Does he agree that Mr. Begin's irresponsible and brutal warmongering must be deterred by more than condemnation, and what steps has he in mind?

We certainly believe, and have often said, that several parts of current Israeli policy, including that in Lebanon, need to be changed if there is to be lasting peace. We have also said that the PLO's policy and its reliance on acts of violence will not achieve its objective of the recognition of Palestinian rights.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that as long as the Government tell Mr. Begin that he will not improve the long-term chances of Israel's survival by blasting Beirut whenever he feels like it and tell the PLO that the chances of improving its status in the international community will not be improved by shelling Kiryat Shimonah whenever it feels like it, they will have the support of the Opposition Front Bench?

I am grateful for that support. That is exactly our position.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side of the House on this question, and then I hope that we shall move more quickly.

As it was Britain which set up the Kingdom of Jordan, do we still recognise Jordan's claims over the West Bank, which we and Pakistan were the only nations to do originally?

Jordan has no claims over the West Bank. Since 1974 it has accepted the PLO as the spokesman of the Palestinian people.

Has not King Hussein made it quite clear—I am sure that this point has been made to the hon. Gentleman, as it has been to me in private conversations with the King—[Interruption.] Some of us occasionally move in more rarefied circles than this Chamber. Is it not a fact that King Hussein has absolutely no intention of becoming involved in the Camp David process? Is it not also a fact that the increasing idiocies of the totally irresponsible maniac who is the present Prime Minister of Israel mean that eventually the moderate leadership of the Palestinians will be displaced and taken over by less responsible elements, and then there will be no hope of peace?

I do not honestly think that the hon. Gentleman's adjectives are very helpful, but it is true that the Jordanian Government will not become involved in the present Camp David process. That is why, as the hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) helpfully suggested, we need to find a way of going beyond it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the latest progress of the Madrid review conference.

It has been our strong hope that the outstanding issues of human rights and military security could be resolved before the end of July. The meeting in Madrid has now reached a critical phase in the negotiations on a mandate for the conference on disarmament in Europe. If this issue can be resolved it should open the way to agreement on the substantial and balanced final document which we are seeking.

Is it not a fact that while the Madrid talks have been dragging on during the past months the Soviet authorities have continued to jam broadcasts to the Soviet Union by the BBC and by other Western countries, that they have still not made Western newspapers and magazines available in the Soviet Union, as they promised to do, and that they are cracking down even more ruthlessly on their own dissidents and cutting back even more drastically on would-be emigrants? What new proposals do the Government and their allies have to make the Soviet Union stick more closely in future to the pledges that it made freely at Helsinki?

My hon. Friend is right in saying that the Soviet record on implementation is extremely disappointing. That is why we spent so much time at the Madrid conference in reviewing and in pointing up the facts to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention. The question is whether it is better to forgo the whole process because it has been disappointing, or—as we are trying to do—to try to put together a new and balanced document which will enable us to keep up the pressure.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent discussions have been held with the United States Government on the co-ordination of policy towards Central America.

Although we discuss Central America regularly with the United States Government, there is no co-ordination of policy.

But is it not time that the Government dissociated themselves from the American Administration's support for the regime in El Salvador, particularly when 60 civilians are being killed every day, mostly by the security and paramilitary forces? Should not the Government display a more friendly attitude towards Nicaragua, and would it not encourage a more independent view by the Government if they opened embassies in both El Salvador and Nicaragua?

We believe that everyone should encourage the holding of elections in El Salvador in March 1982, which is President Duarte's present plan. It is disappointing that the guerrillas have apparently been burning town halls to destroy the electoral registers, but we still believe that those elections are the best solution to the problem in that country.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of discussions about the constitutional future of Belize, and can he say how those discussions are progressing?

Yes, Sir. The constitution will be available shortly. The draft constitution is available now, if my hon. Friend would care to see it. We had further discussions this morning with the Premier of Belize, who is in London, and further announcements will be made at the weekend about the progress towards independence.

Does the Minister agree that the Somoza family, which for many years enjoyed the full support of the United States of America, was responsible for frustrating any opportunity of holding free elections in Nicaragua? As the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about free elections, does he not consider that, now that the Somoza regime has gone, we ought to provide more support for the new Government? Will he reconsider the question of aid? Will he also reconsider opening an embassy in Nicaragua, particularly since the Nicaraguans propose to send a full-time ambassador to London?

In the light of the accent that the hon. Gentleman puts upon free elections, I hope that he will join me in urging free elections upon both sides in El Salvador. Perhaps he would also use his considerable weight with the junta in Nicaragua to urge that they hold free elections, too.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in discussions on the future of Namibia.

The Foreign Ministers of the Five discussed the results of the visit of the United States Deputy-Secretary of State, Mr. Clark, to Southern Africa, and considered measures to strengthen the existing United Nations plan when they met in Ottawa on 20 and 21 July. I have placed in the Library of the House a copy of the communiqué issued after the meeting.

As I have not yet had an opportunity to see the communiqué, can the Minister tell us that serious action will be taken to compel South Africa to reach real agreement on the transfer of power in Namibia? Is he aware that the continued delay in achieving such a settlement passes the initiative to South Africa, confirms South African intransigence and makes a peaceful international settlement that much more difficult to achieve?

As the hon. Gentleman will be able to see when he reads the communiqué, the five Foreign Ministers agreed that they must pursue as vigorously as possible proposals to strengthen the United Nations plan. There will be a further meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Five in September and a meeting next week of the contact group with a 'view to developing positive proposals.

I understand the question put by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but does not my hon. Friend agree that considerable progress has been made in Namibia, that apartheid—that is, separate development—has been abolished by law in Namibia, and that to continue, therefore, to put pressure on Namibia and South Africa, when tremendous progress is being made towards introducing a democratic system, is counter-productive to the best interests of all the Namibians and, not least, of the Western world as well?

Any positive progress that is made in the way that my hon. Friend has described is helpful to the situation. At the same time, I am sure that he will agree that it is in everyone's interests to achieve a positive international agreement that has the support of all the parties concerned.

Will the Minister stop misusing language in describing the latest proposals as a strengthening of the United Nations plan when in practice they mean a weakening of the United Nations resolutions? Is it not a fact that there is no will or initiative, especially on the part of the American Government, to apply those resolutions, and that the longer the implementation of those resolutions is delayed the less likely it becomes that there will be a peaceful solution in Namibia and Southern Africa?

I am surprised by the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has approached the matter, since he does not know what proposals are being developed and whether they strengthen the plan.

Tell us.

That is precisely what is being worked on at present by the Foreign Ministers of the Five.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many representations he has received about cuts in the external services of the British Broadcasting Corporation; and what assessment has been made of the effect of their withdrawal upon British interests.

There are to be no cuts in the finances of the BBC external services.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gather that the phrase is a terminological inexactitude. Did the Minister's reply relate to the fact that there are going to be cuts in the BBC's external services?

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a bit far.

Taking national broadcasting as a whole, and the additional resources to be given to local radio, for example, cannot means be found to maintain all useful services without throwing a burden on the public purse? Can we not do much better in presenting the truth about Northern Ireland in Europe as well as in North America?

I think that my hon. Friend has made a useful suggestion. I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about his views on that matter.

Is not the Minister of State now using the same kind of double-speak that he used when he said that there were not to be any cuts in the BBC's external services? Has he not read the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which points out that £750,000 was spent on the VIP suites at Heathrow and Gatwick? Would not it be better if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cut out these wasteful frills, both at home and abroad, instead of decimating the BBC's external services?

The Select Committee came to the conclusion

"that the capital programme has been cut too often and by too much and that the time has now come to spend more money on it."

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety about this subject? Will he again make absolutely clear the Government's position on the matter? I find myself slightly confused by his answer.

I agree that there has been widespread concern, and I would welcome an opportunity to give the full facts and figures to the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give them. "] In summary, a capital programme amounting at present prices to £102 million has been authorised to make the BBC overseas services audible in all parts of the world by the end of the decade. That is a large increase. The BBC has been asked to find savings of only about £23 million over the period towards that capital cost of £102 million.

If nearly everyone concerned misunderstands the Government's proposals must not the Government have done rather badly in explaining them?

If I may suggest a thought to the right hon. Gentleman, the Government give full editorial freedom to the BBC, and the Government do not control the media.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if any charges have been preferred against Mr. Andrew Pyke, a British citizen detained in Iran since August 1980; and if he will make a statement.

The Iranian authorities said first that Mr. Pyke was charged with espionage. They have since dropped this and substituted charges concerning the commercial activities of the Dutch-Iranian firm which employed Mr. Pyke in Iran. We remain very concerned at his detention for almost 11 months, and we continue to do all we can on his behalf. In particular, we have pressed the Iranians to clarify further the charges against him and to indicate when his case might be resolved.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation regarding Mr. Pyke remains most unsatisfactory and that it is giving rise to deep concern among his family, who are worried about the sporadic consular access being granted to him? Will my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will in no way forget the welfare of Mr. Pyke and that they will take all possible steps, by whatever means necessary, to establish the exact nature of the allegations being made against Mr. Pyke so that he may prepare his defence, as we would allow any foreigner detained in this country to do?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I give that assurance. It is something that charges of espionage have been dropped, but it is certainly not enough. On the question of regular consular visits, particularly, the situation leaves much to be desired.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who were in the past extremely critical of the regime of the Shah are now very disturbed at the lack of justice shown in recent decisions made in Iran? We are deeply concerned and would therefore wish strongly to add our voices to the concern being expressed about Mr. Pyke. We hope that the Government will do everything possible in this respect.

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's evenhanded support.

What representations have been made at the current Helsinki review conference discussions in Madrid on the fate of the Siberian Seven—the two Russian Christian families who have spent the last three years in asylum in the American embassy in Moscow? Will my hon. Friend now initiate discussions beween the two sides to ensure—

Order. The supplementary question must relate to Mr. Andrew Pyke. The hon. Gentleman may do better next time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what subjects were discussed with Sir Joshua Hassan, Chief Minister of Gibraltar, on 7 July; and what was the outcome of the meeting.

The Chief Minister and I exchanged views on a number of matters. Chief among them were the implications for Gibraltar of the defence programme.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. During his discussions with Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, did he by any chance discuss the question of the embarkation of the Royal couple from Gibraltar after the Royal Wedding? If so, has his attention been drawn to newspaper articles in which it is stated that the King of Spain and his family will not now attend the Royal Wedding because of that embarkation? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no changing of the instructions that have been issued about the Royal couple leaving Gibraltar on the first part of their honeymoon?

No, that matter did not arise in my conversation with the Chief Minister. I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. We are talking about the honeymoon of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer. It is their honeymoon and nobody else's and it is not for anybody else to interfere with it.

Did the Spanish Foreign Minister, when he met the Foreign Secretary, give any indication that this advice would be tendered to the King of Spain? Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that many of us find it incomprehensible that a democratic Government should take that attitude—so far as one can see, they are worse than Franco—despite the clear and well known views of the Gibraltarians?

No, that matter was not raised when my noble Friend and I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister in Brussels, although subsequently there have been exchanges between the Governments. We all know that the Spanish Government have peculiarly difficult problems and are bound to be sensitive about matters concerning Gibraltar. But the House knows that we have bent over backwards to assist the Spanish Government, and it is worth reminding the House that if the Lisbon agreement had been implemented, as we have long been urging, the difficulties would not have arisen.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while it may be true that the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer are perfectly entitled to be married in Gibraltar cathedral if they so please, it is unhelpful, to say the least—

Rubbish.

—and would not he agree—

Declare your interest.

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to ask his question.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, rather than looking for fault on either side, it would be more helpful simply to confirm that the British Government's relations with Spain will remain unimpaired by this regrettable incident, and to state that we shall continue to support its application for membership of both NATO and the European Economic Community?

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that we, at least, wish to keep a sense of proportion in the matter. Therefore, it should not be blown up into a major diplomatic incident. Of course, the exchanges between the two Royal Families are entirely private and not a matter for me or the House to comment on. But, as I said, it seems surprising to me that the Spanish Government should have made an issue out of a private visit at a time when we have been trying to improve relations between the two countries.

Is not this latest Spanish farce further evidence of the run-around that the Spanish authorities have given the Lord Privy Seal and the Foreign Office over the past 12 months? Will the right hon. Gentleman now clearly say that there will be no further progress of any kind on the Spanish application to join the Common Market until the Lisbon agreement of last year is honoured and ratified?

With respect, the right hon. Gentleman, as the senior Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, is meant to improve, not spoil, relations between countries. To talk about a Spanish farce is unhelpful and silly. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House know, we have been urging the implementation of the Lisbon agreement for many months, and, as I said, this difference would not have arisen had the Spanish authorities carried out that agreement.

rose—

Order. I shall call one more hon. Member from each side.

Can it be made clear to the Spanish authorities that the British people, who genuinely want good relations with a democratic Spain, are disappointed and, indeed, surprised that the Spanish Government should adopt the same bullying tactics in regard to Gibraltar as did the late Fascist dictatorship? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to make it clear once again that under international treaty Gibraltar is British, that its people are British and wish to remain so, and that it does not lie in the mouth of any foreign authority to say that a member of the British Royal Family, a Member of the British Parliament or anyone else cannot set foot in Gibraltar?

I think that I have already made it clear that the arrangements for the honeymoon of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer are a matter for them and this country, and for nobody else. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is a pity that the restrictions on movement between Spain and Gibraltar were not removed immediately the democratic regime came to power. Nevertheless, as I said, I do not believe that we should blow up this incident into a major conflagration between our two countries.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was putting his question a number of hon. Members were shouting "Declare your interest." I have no knowledge whether the hon. Member has an interest, but is not the situation—

Order. I can help the hon. Gentleman at once. At Question Time, if an hon. Member has an interest he is not required to declare it.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that if Conservative Members had voted as the Opposition did on the British Nationality Bill and the matter of Gibraltarian citizens, many of their protests would have had greater force than they have at present? Is he further aware that at the time of negotiations over the Lisbon agreement and the entry of Spain into the EEC and NATO, it shows a peculiar degree of insensitivity to state that this happy event is a purely private affair when the Heir to the Throne will be visiting a place about which there is contention between two countries of Western Europe, and that the couple would have been better advised to board the Royal yacht at a place such as Jersey, Sark or Alderney than to raise this problem?

Disgraceful.

First, the imputations against my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) are, of course, unjustified. Secondly, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Apart from anything else, if one intends to cruise in the Mediterranean, Jersey is not the best place at which to embark. Thirdly, I do not think that the British Nationality Bill would have affected the matter, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

On a point of order Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to take up the time of the House, but you will be aware that throughout my question to the Lord Privy Seal my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) shouted "Declare your interest". I therefore feel that I should say to the House that I have no personal financial interest either in Gibraltar or in Spain, but it is well known to the House both that my wife is Spanish and that my family have lived in Spain for over 30 years, and to that extent I have an indirect interest. I hoped that particularly my hon. Friends would have been prepared to listen to a point of view which, although they did not share it, was backed with at least some experience and knowledge of that country.

There is a lesson for the whole House in that point of order, because it is unfortunate when personal innuendoes are made.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the intended progress of the European Economic Community diplomatic initiative over the Middle East; and what steps he is taking to co-ordinate any action with the Secretary of State of the United States of America.

I cannot predict what form European efforts will take, but we shall continue to seek general acceptance of the Venice principles which we and the other members of the Ten believe represent a just basis for lasting peace. The European Council statement of 1 July makes it clear that the Ten will consult the United States. My right hon. and noble Friend held talks with Mr. Haig on 17 July, and our contacts will continue.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the aim of bringing a settlement to the Middle East must be pursued jointly by the Western Powers under willing American leadership? Would it now be helpful if Mr. Haig, Mr. Gromyko and Lord Carrington, in his EEC role, met to see whether they could broaden the Habib mission?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the search for peace in the Middle East has to be shared by all the Western Powers and by the United States and Europe in particular. My right hon. and noble Friend will certainly consider my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that if the Western Powers supinely allow Israel indiscriminately to attack any State in that part of the world, they are undermining the possible effectiveness of the United Nations as a peace-keeping or law-making organisation? Is it not high time that they threw their authority and weight behind the United Nations peace-keeping force in the Lebanon and made that force effective, as they are perfectly able to do?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given our full support to the United Nations force in the Lebanon. We have also made our views on the recent violence perfectly clear to the Israeli Government both on behalf of ourselves and on behalf of the Ten. Our representative to the United Nations, in a debate there yesterday, said:

"My Government deplores resort to armed action. We have frequently criticised PLO violence, but the scale of recent Israeli actions and the resulting deaths, particularly civilian casualties, can in no way be justified".

Reverting to the European peace initiative as far as it has gone, can my right hon. Friend make a simple statement on the question whether Israel at least accepts that the Palestinians have a right to a homeland of their own, or does he believe that Mr. Begin's view is that the West Bank is an intrinsic part of Israel?

I cannot say what the whole Israeli view is, but, as my hon. Friend hinted, Mr. Begin, in Washington immediately after Camp David, said that he would see that Israeli soveriegnty over the West Bank was preserved, and during his election campaign he said that while he was Prime Minister no part of the Israeli-occupied territories would be given back.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman regards his answer to that question as totally inadequate. Is he aware that the Government allowed a tremendous sense of anticipation to build up in this country and in the Middle East about what they would do to develop the European initiative when Britain took over the Presidency of the EEC? If he intends to do no more than he said, does he not realise that there will be a tremendous sense of anticlimax in the Middle East which will add to the instability in the area?

I do not think that that is a very well considered question. We have occupied the Presidency for about three weeks, the Israeli Government is still being formed, and there is a great deal of violence in the Lebanon. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this is the moment to produce a cut and dried plan to settle the problems of the Middle East, he knows very little about foreign affairs.

asked the Lord Privy Seal, pursuant to the reply of the Under-Secretary given to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West on 2 July, what further consideration he has given to the request by the Ugandan Government for British military assistance.

A military appraisal of the training requirements of the Ugandan Army has now been completed. This is being studied, and the implications of assistance from the United Kingdom are being assessed.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. May I urge him to proceed with great caution, bearing in mind the controversial election result in Uganda and the need to ensure that British military assistance does not go to any Government who do not have the full-hearted support of their people.

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall procced with caution; but, as one who knows that part of the world very well, I am sure that he will agree that after a decade of tyranny and anarchy in that country, our primary consideration, with other friends of Uganda, must be to do what we can, in however modest a fashion, to help those people achieve political reconciliation and economic recovery.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what study he has given to the development of the technology of direct international television transmissions by satellite and its implications for the British Broadcasting Corporation world service.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently published a report of the study on direct broadcasting by satellite for the United Kingdom. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office contributed to the preparation of the report. Comments on the report have been invited by the end of this month. It would be premature to conduct a detailed study of the implications for the British Broadcasting Corporation's world service in advance.

Has my hon. Friend appreciated the advantages for the British electronics industry if it were seen to be among the first in the field of satellite television? Would he also consider the advantages if the existing BBC language services were extended to other cultural and also to technological subjects, and that the cost of that might be shared with European Community countries as part of their joint contribution to the Lomé convention?

The BBC external services are already using satellites to relay short-wave transmissions, but expansion into television would raise major financial and constitutional issues and would depend on the BBC's general response to direct broadcasting by satellite. In addition, it would be difficult to collect the licence fees from overseas residents.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what Ministerial Council meetings of the European Economic Community are planned over the next three months.

I shall arrange for the information to be published in the Official Report.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there has been a deputation from the Sheffield city council to the Department of Industry today to express its concern about the level of EEC grants to Sheffield and to South Yorkshire? Will he also bear in mind the concern about the level of steel imports and about the cost of energy to the steel industry in Sheffield? Will the Ministers of Industry and Energy be meeting in the next three months to discuss these issues?

I shall certainly give my hon. Friend the answer to the first two parts of his question. The House is aware of the difficulties that industries such as steel are under because of international energy prices. My hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor made possible some relief in the Budget, and subsequent action has been taken. I shall bring my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.

When shall we have a meeting of the Fishery Ministers at the Ministerial Council? Is it hoped that some sort of agreement will be reached which will allow a deep-sea and middle-water British fleet rather than just an inshore fleet? Or are we to wait until those fleets completely disappear and the French take over all our waters?

No, there is no question of that. Certainly there will be a Fisheries Council in September, and we hope that progress will be made. But, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, as a result of the change of Government in France there has necessarily been some delay.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the problems of the Middle East will be a priority on the list of matters to be discussed at a future Council meeting? Does he agree that Jordan will inevitably play a vital part in any settlement of the Middle East problem and that the present interpretation by Israel of the autonomy of the occupied territories and the expansion of the settlements in those occupied territories does not help Jordan, which is keen on peace, to participate fully in what is a vital initiative for the peace of the world, let alone the peace of the Middle East?

Certainly the Middle East will figure largely at future Foreign Ministers Council meetings. I agree with my hon. Friend that obviously Jordan will play an important part. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made plain our views on Israeli settlements. We regard them as illegal and as obstacles to peace.

What is the point of further discussions on fisheries when German trawlers, with the full approval of the German Government, are fishing in British waters banned to our own fishermen? What urgent action are the Government taking?

That is not going on now. It did happen, the boats were arrested, and the catch confiscated.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will direct the United Kingdom's period of Presidency of the Council of Ministers towards seeking co-operation on major issues to the benefit of the United Kingdom.

The duty of the Presidency is to conduct the Council's business efficiently and to encourage co-operation. Among the major issues to be considered during our Presidency is the problem of the Community's budget. At meetings on this subject, as at all Community meetings during our Presidency, our interests will be promoted by a separate United Kingdom delegation.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, during our Presidency, we should seek to gain positive benefits from our membership of the Community while seeking to reduce excessive bureaucracy and unnecessary harmonisation?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that that is a matter particularly to be pursued during our Presidency, but certainly we favour positive co-operation, no unnecessary harmonisation, arid the diminution of bureaucracy at all times.

I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that by far the most important issues will be the budgetary contributions and the restructuring of the budget. However, will he confirm that if no agreement is reached on the budget, in 1982 we shall be making a net contribution to the EEC budget of £1½ billion? Even if there is agreement on the proposals put forward by the Commission—and there is no certainty of that—we shall still be paying £850 million in 1982. Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the commitment that we shall not agree to anything which leaves us not in broad balance in terms of contributions to the budget?

No, I do not agree with either of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. First, I do not wish to assume in any way that there will not be an agreement, and, if there is, I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman gets his figures. Secondly, if there is not an agreement, then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was part of the 30 May agreement that arrangements similar to those over the last few years should be put forward for 1982.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that future co-operation can only be damaged by the news that the Labour Party national executive committee is apparently now committed to taking us out of Europe within one year of any future Labour Government? Does he not find that strange, given the publicised views of previous leaders of that party? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that, depressingly, that commitment appears to be based mainly on prejudice, intolerance and a selective use of statistics?

I certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I do not agree with the first part, because what the national executive committee did yesterday seems to be entirely in keeping with its usual behaviour and views, and I noted that both the leader and deputy leader of the party were overruled by the NEC.

Reverting to the original question, surely the Lord Privy Seal agrees that the job of the Presidency is to secure co-operation in the interests of the Community as a whole, not in the interests of the countries of those persons who occupy the Chair.

I certainly agree with that. Indeed, it is exactly what I said.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on foreign policy co-operation in the European Economic Community since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken towards obtaining a common foreign policy in European Economic Community member States.

The Government have continued to be active in working for a common European approach to foreign policy questions since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency at the beginning of July.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Secretary's leadership so far, as President of the Council of Ministers, has greatly heartened those of us who believe that the Common Market is about bigger issues than the price of butter? Will he confirm that foreign policy co-operation will remain a high priority throughout the rest of Britain's Presidency?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Certainly I confirm that one of the many matters on which we shall concentrate will be the improvement of political co-operation in foreign affairs.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be strong resistance in the House and outside to the move towards subordinating this country at all times to a common EEC foreign policy, and that it is important that this country should be able to make a judgment on international affairs free from subordination either to the EEC or the United States of America? Will he confirm that that is the Government's view?

It is only the hon. Gentleman who introduces the word "subordination". There is no question of our subordinating our policy to anyone else. We seek to co-operate with our partners so that the voice of Europe, with its 270 million people, is heard in the world. That objective is far less likely to lead to subordination than if each country acted purely on its own. Of course we have our own foreign policy and will continue to do so.

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that substantial quantities of Soviet war materials are reaching the PLO in Lebanon today through Syria and Libya? In view of the fact that President Reagan is temporarily withholding military supplies from Israel, should not my right hon. and noble Friend, in his capacity as President of the European Council of Foreign Ministers, make urgent representations to the Soviet Union to take steps to see that Soviet war material is not fed into that area of conflagration?

No, I cannot confirm what my right hon. Friend said. We have no information that large quantities of materials are reaching the PLO. As for the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend will realise that although President Reagan is withholding aircraft, he is continuing other arms supplies to Israel.

How many more cities can the Israeli air force bomb before the nations of the European Community consider cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel?

As the hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier, we deplore the bombing of Beirut and the high civilian casualties that it caused. At the same time, as was said at the Ottawa summit, we deplore all violence in the Middle East.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the stability of Turkey is vital not only to the European Community but to NATO? In that context, will he give an undertaking that during our Presidency we shall do all in our power to help Turkey not only to retain that stability but to return to a democratic form of Government?

I entirely accept what my hon. Friend said. The stability of Turkey is in the interests of the Community, of NATO and of the West in general. As I told the Turkish Government when I visited their country recently, we shall give them every support, and we hope that before long they will be able to return to democracy.

Reverting to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answer on the European initiative, may I ask whether he is seriously trying to tell the House that, in envisaging our Presidency and the development of the initiative, the Government never considered that there might be violence in the Middle East when they came to power? Has not violence been endemic in Middle East politics since 1948, and will it not continue to be endemic unless a settlement is reached? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he has no plans now for developing the European initiative, he is scarcely likely to achieve anything by Christmas?

The right hon. Gentleman does not achieve much by putting into my mouth words that I did not use. Of course we envisaged violence in the Middle East. As the right hon. Gentleman said, violence has been endemic there since 1948. I simply suggested that to formulate a plan without paying attention to what was happening in the area at the time would not be good politics.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to address the European Parliament during the British Presidency.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plan to do so. My right hon. and noble Friend addressed the European Parliament on 8 July and outlined the programme for the United Kingdom Presidency.

If the Foreign Secretary addresses the European Parliament again, will he take an early opportunity to allay misgivings in Europe that the threatened British withdrawal might shake European unity by pointing out that the prospect of a Labour Government coming back to power now that the Labour Party has committed itself to withdrawal from Europe is nil? Will he tell the European Parliament that the Labour Party will no more improve its chances by parading anti-Europeanism than by offering to strip Britain of its defences?

I rather doubt whether my right hon. and noble Friend will find much time to deal with that aspect of matters. As Labour's plans become unveiled, the uncertainty and disruption that their implementation would cause is becoming clear. It is also becoming clear that they do not have a great deal to do with British interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They have a great deal to do with the Labour Party's desire to build a collectivist State in this country.

If the Foreign Secretary is to address the Common Market members again, will he bear in mind that his initiatives in Afghanistan and Kampuchea will have a much better chance of success if he tries directly to involve in the talks the Governments of those two countries?

The hon. Gentleman knows the two stages which the European plan suggests for Afghanistan. That seemed to us to fit the case. He also knows of the complications in respect of Kampuchea. The main task is to tackle the basic problem in both instances—namely, the withdrawal of external forces.

Since my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about British interests, does he not think that it is slightly inappropriate that, during our Presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers, we should be persuading the BBC to cut its broadcasts to Europe?

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) dealt admirably with that subject.

If the Foreign Secretary is tempted to waste his time addressing the European Assembly, will he please bear in mind that he is responsible to the House, and not to that body?

My right hon. and noble Friend made a speech at Strasbourg to which I listened. It was extremely well received as a clear and forthright statement of what was practicable during our Presidency. He did a good job that day.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers to be considering formal proposals for the reform of the European Economic Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with his European Community colleagues regarding the Commission's various proposals for reform of Community practices.

The Foreign Affairs Council agreed on 22 and 23 June that the Committee of Permanent Representatives should set work in hand with a view to clarifying the report which the Commission has presented in accordance with the 30 May 1980 agreement and should draw up a work programme for the Council to consider at its meeting in September. The European Council had a preliminary exchange of views on the Commission's report on 29 and 30 June and agreed that this would be a major topic for its meeting in London in November, and that appropriate conclusions should be reached then.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that four months, which is all that will be available after the August holidays, is a very short time in Community politics, but that at the end of that time the British public will he most anxious to see that a first major step has been taken during our Presidency towards reform of Community practices, and notably towards restructuring the European budget?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's every word. As he rightly said, because of the holidays we have a short time—four and a half months. However, we expect considerable progress by the rime of the European Council at the end of November.

I revert to the previous answer given by the Lord Privy Seal on the matter when he said that if there was no agreement on budget restructuring, the formula laid down in the Council of Ministers meeting of 30 May 1980 would apply to 1982. If that formula applies, what will be our net contribution to the budget in 1982, bearing in mind that our net contribution this year is £570 million?

As the budget has not yet been formulated or passed, how can I possibly say exactly how much we shall contribute to it?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one Community practice that it would be wise to adopt would be some form of proportional representation when we next have European elections?

That is a very controversial matter. It has been discussed in the European Parliament, but until recommendations are produced I do not wish to comment on what it may or may not decide.

In terms of the reform of Community practices and in view of Israel's international brigandage, would it not be advisable for the EEC Foreign Ministers to consider an abrogation of the trade and financial agreements that the EEC has with Israel?

There is a danger of European questions becoming Middle Eastern questions. Of course the Middle Eastern question is of deep importance. The hon. Gentleman knows that our approach is based on the Venice declaration and the European initiative. I cannot say now that the approach that he advocates would be likely to further a settlement.

Whatever may or may not be the policy of the Labour Party with regard to Europe, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a growing disenchantment and sense of unfairness in this country with our arrangements, and that, without major reforms, there will be a growing move within the country—whichever party is in power—to break away from the present European arrangements?

No, I do not agree. As my hon. Friend is aware, we were dissatisfied with the previous arrangement, and, unlike the previous Labour Government, we succeeded in changing it. The result was the 30 May agreement. We are now discussing the mandate that the Commission produced to prevent unacceptable circum-stances arising in future. As my hon. Friend knows, our objective is to reach conclusions on that as soon as possible.