asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will report progress on the setting up of the Middle East peacekeeping force.

The United Kingdom, France, Italy and the Netherlands made clear in November their readiness to join in the Sinai multinational force and observers. We have recently confirmed this position to the Governments of Israel, Egypt and the United States of America. Discussions are now being held with the force's directorate-general on the detailed arrangements for the force.

Will the Minister give the House some detailed information on the recent response of the Israeli Government to the creation of the force? Do they clearly understand that the force has nothing whatsoever to do with the European initiative but is in direct line with the Camp David spirit and agreement?

The moves certainly follow and are part of the process laid down in the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. There was, for a time, a question mark in the mind of the Israeli Government about this matter. It has now been sorted out and the plan is going ahead for a limited British contribution—probably a headquarters contingent of about 35 men.

My right hon. Friend has given us the background to the creation of the force. Would it not be more satisfactory in the long run if the United Nations were to accept responsibility for the peace-monitoring duties? Will the Government work patiently towards that end?

This possibility was explored by the partners to the arrangement before we were asked to contribute, but it did not appear possible at that time.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the conditions laid down by his right hon. Friend when he made his announcement on 23 November, and the context in which those conditions were laid down for European participation in the force, have remained unchanged as a result of the discussions which have been pursued since 23 November?

Yes, Sir

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many scientific attaches are attached to British missions at present as compared with (a) 1972 and (b) 1977.

At present we have 11 officers overseas engaged in civil scientific and technological work. In 1972 we had 12 and in 1977 we had 10.

Is it not a false economy to cut down?

The hon. Gentleman has beaten his record for brevity. I know that he is disappointed, in particular about the decision over the counsellor in Moscow. We have tried to make sure that the essential work is done there. It is difficult to sort out priorities within our limited resources, but we think that we have struck a fair balance.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about progress of negotiations towards Namibian independence.

The Five have received replies from all concerned to their revised proposals for constitutional principles. Agreement has been secured on many points, but some items raised by the front-line States and SWAPO require further consideration before the next phase of the negotiations can be tackled. The Five's intention remains to begin implementation of the United Nations plan during 1982.

Does the Minister believe that it is helpful for any party in these negotiations to seek to impose artificial deadlines?

It is right to keep to objectives. If we do not set objectives, it is difficult to get a move on in negotiations.

Does my hon. Friend believe that it is helpful, in having the elections, for the new Secretary-General of the United Nations to reaffirm that SWAPO is the sole legitimate representative of the Namibian people? How can other parties possibly enter elections under UN auspices and feel that they will get a fair crack of the whip?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Government take the view that it is not for any other organisation or country to determine who are the representatives of the people of Namibia. It is for the people of Namibia to decide. I have noted the exchange of correspondence between the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the South African Foreign Minister, Mr. Botha. This increases the attention that must be given to the supreme importance of working out in phase 2 the impartiality of the electoral process to the parties concerned.

Does the Minister agree that there is some substance in the SWAPO assertion, backed by the front-line States, that the present revised proposals relating to electoral change are unnecessarily complex, having regard to the fact that we are dealing with an unsophisticated electorate composed of people who have been under the heel of an apartheid regime for several decades?

The proposals on the electoral system are designed to be as fair as possible to all parties and all groups within Namibia. There has been a reaction from SWAPO and the front-line States on this point. We are trying to seek a way through. We hope that it will be possible before too long to break through in order to move on to phase 2.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in contradiction of the view expressed by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), the political situation in Namibia is extremely complicated and not as simple as the hon. Gentleman would have us believe? Does he further agree that the impartiality of the United Nations is of the utmost importance if the United Nations is to carry any weight with the ethnic groups in that country? Is it right that the new secretary-general, in his statement to the Council for Namibia, should totally ignore the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance, which represents all ethnic groups within Namibia and has made such progress towards breaking down apartheid in Namibia and South-West Africa?

I agree that the impartiality of the electoral process concerns all the parties. I have no doubt that when we reach phase 2—I hope this will be soon—there will be a great deal of discussion. It is important to assure the parties that the electoral process will be impartial.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs expects next to meet President Mubarak of Egypt.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited President Mubarak of Egypt to visit Britain on 6 and 7 February. My right hon. and noble Friend will be abroad at that time, but Foreign Office Ministers will take part in the talks.

When the meeting takes place, will my right hon. Friend persuade his right hon. and noble Friend that the only sensible course of action is through the Camp David accords in order to preserve the autonomy of the Palestinians?

My hon. Friend refers to preserving the autonomy. There is no autonomy at present. We have no desire to discourage the autonomy talks. Obviously, if we are discussing the future of the Palestinians, there will come a point when the Palestinians themselves have to be involved.

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

In recent weeks attention has concentrated on the continuing efforts of certain Arab Governments to agree a common negotiating stance and on the forthcoming Israeli withdrawal from Sinai in accordance with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. We believe that steps towards a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East must include both recognition of the Palestinians' right to self-determination and recognition of Israel's right to live in peace. We and our European partners remain active in the search for progress to this end on the basis of the Venice declaration.

I welcome the denunciation by the European Community of the illegal annexation by Israel of the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem and its definition of the annexation as null and void. Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is to be progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement, the Palestinians must be fully involved and that this presupposes negotiations with the PLO as stated in the Venice declaration?

We stated at Venice, and still believe, that the PLO, because of the support that it receives in the occupied territories, will need to be associated with the negotiations.

Do the Government maintain a continuing dialogue with Israel on these matters? Are the Government putting to Israel the great concern felt by many people about the extension of the settlements?

Yes, we maintain a dialogue with Israel. Indeed, my right hon. and noble Friend will visit Israel at the end of March. This will provide a further opportunity for discussions.

Does my right hon. Friend find it possible to visualise a comprehensive settlement of the problems of the Middle East short of the establishment of a fully independent Palestinian State?

We are not near that point. Neither the British Government nor the European Ten can impose a settlement. What we can do is to take the opportunities that occur to get the parties, including Israel, round a negotiating table. It is probably not helpful to foresee the end of the process before the process has really begun.

Does the Minister recognise that, in conformity with and in the same manner as all other settlements that have been effected after a war, there can be no comprehensive settlement of the problem unless and until all the countries in the area are brought together in an atmosphere of negotiation? Does he agree that whatever is done must be recognised by all of them?

As a general principle, that is right. It is one reason why we thought that Crown Prince Fand's principles were a step forward in that direction.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has made any representations to the South African Government concerning the treatment of Mr. Steven Kitson by South African security forces while in detention; and if he will make a statement.

As I informed the hon.. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) on 22 January, the British embassy, on the instructions of my right hon. and noble Friend, drew the attention of the South African Government to Mr. Kitson's allegations of ill-treatment, expressed our concern and asked that the allegations be investigated. We received a reply from the South African Government yesterday, which is now being carefully examined.

Will the Minister give the purport of the reply received from the South African Government? Will he take into account, when assessing the bona fides of the reply, what is currently happening in South Africa? There has been further intimidation, arrests of leading trade unionists—30 of them were arrested recently—detention without trial and all the other miserable apparatus of an evil apartheid regime?

The South African Government's reply is fairly detailed, since the allegations made by Mr. Steven Kitson about his treatment were quite extensive. It will therefore take time for us to investigate and decide how best to deal with the matter. On the general point, as the hon. Gentleman probably knows, we have repeatedly made statements, incuding those made by our permanent representative at the United Nations and those made on behalf of the Ten in December, that we deplore bannings and detentions and believe that people imprisoned for political reasons should be freed.

How could the British consul in Johannesburg give an assurance to the press that Mr. Kitson had not been ill-treated when he knew that Mr. Kitson had been cross-examined for 24 hours with only two short breaks?

Our first concern, when a situation like this develops, is to seek to do the best we can for the individual concerned. Our first priority was to do our best to obtain his release. That was our primary consideration. I am glad that within six days he had been released. Now we are looking at these serious allegations. I have explained what action we are taking.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Poland.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will made a statement on the situation in Poland, and the new initiatives now being considered by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to deal with the problem.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement of Government policy in relation to the present situation in Poland.

Her Majesty's Government, together with their European Community partners and NATO allies, have condemned without reserve the massive violation of human and civil rights that has occurred in Poland. We have called upon the Polish leadership to live up to its declared intention to re-establish civil liberties and the process of reform.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply. Would it not be appropriate for the House to be treated to another full statement, in view of the great international importance of recent events in Poland? Do the Government agree with President Reagan's statement that human rights in Poland have been put back 30 years? Is my right hon. Friend of the view that, despite speculation to the contrary, there has been no real lifting of the military clampdown in Poland?

I have just made a statement in answer to my hon. Friend's question. As circumstances develop, and whenever necessary, I am prepared to come to the House to make another. I would not wish to quarrel with the President of the United States as to whether human rights have been put back 30 years or some other length of time. There is no doubt, as we have repeatedly made clear, that human rights are being seriously violated in Poland

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that although the whole House would accept and support his condemnation of the denial of civil rights in Poland. that stance would be far more credible if we and the United States did not apply double standards and if the British Government objected to and attacked equally strongly the denial of civil rights in countries such as El Salvador and Turkey? Was any useful purpose served by the Prime Minister appearing in a ridiculous Hollywood film? Was that done with the consent and approval of all our European allies?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government deplore violations of human rights wherever they occur. We have repeatedly said that with, I thought, the support of the Opposition.

No. The Prime Minister denied that.

If the hon. Gentleman does not support us, that is all right. With regard to the programme, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was asked to give her views about Poland, and she did so.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that the plight of the Polish people under martial law and an oppressive Stalinist junta was not helped in any way by the production "Let Poland be Poland" and that in many ways it made a mockery of the tragedy in Poland? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the United States President and the British Prime Minister would speak with far greater authority and credibility about Poland if they did not constantly act as defenders and apologists of vile, oppressive regimes throughout the world, particularly the present regime in El Salvador?

The hon. Gentleman's attack on the Government for supporting vile, oppressive regimes throughout the world deserves no comment from me. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is nonsense. [HON. MEMBERS: "El Salvador".] He knows perfectly well the Government's position on Poland, about which I am answering questions. Whether the programme—which I did not see—shown in America a couple of days ago was helpful or not, the Western world should continue to condemn what is happening in Poland, to press the Polish Government to honour their undertakings and to consider what action it is appropriate to take. That is exactly what is happening.

Do the Government not understand that if we pontificate upon the internal affairs of other nations we give them the moral right to pontificate upon ours, and that if we seek to interfere in their management of their own affairs we give them a colourable justification for seeking to interfere in ours? Is that really what the Government want?

If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that Her Majesty's Government should remain silent about what is happening in Poland, I can only say that I do not agree.

I commend my right hon. Friend's view that there should be a concerted Western response to the events in Poland and the actions of the Soviet Union and that it should be in terms of specific measures. Will he ensure that the West's agreement upon these specific measures is quickly forthcoming?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is to this end that we have had, and are having even today, discussions with our allies about the most appropriate measures that we can take jointly. I cannot say whether we shall reach conclusions today, but I undertake that we shall press ahead as quickly as we can and that I shall keep the House informed of the conclusions.

Has the Lord Privy Seal any information on reports that there may soon be a meeting between the Polish authorities and members of the Solidarity movement, including Mr. Lech Walesa? If those reports prove to be true, that will be an important step towards satisfying a condition that we all feel is necessary before providing new aid to the Polish Government.

The anwswer to the second of the right hon. Gentleman's questions is "No". We have agreed that the rescheduling of Polish debts should be left in abeyance, and that remains our position.

In helping to relieve distress in Poland, is it not important that supplies should be sent through Church agencies rather than through the Polish Red Cross, which is clearly dominated by the dictatorship?

Yes. As my hon. Friend knows, the Community has decided to use the money set aside for selling food to the Polish Government at a discount to provide humanitarian aid, including food aid. The channels through which it is sent are very important. We are declining to send it to the Polish Government. We believe that the Church can best ensure that the food and humanitarian assistance provided reach the right people. I note what my hon. Friend said about the Red Cross. We are, of course, in touch with the International Red Cross and with other voluntary organisations. The prime purpose is to ensure that the food goes to those who really need it.

Does the Lord Privy Seal accept that some people found it ironic that the Foreign Minister of Turkey should take part in the programme "Let Poland be Poland"? May we get the Government's policy straight? Are the Government against the suppression of trade unions in Poland but in favour of the suppression of trade unions in Turkey?

I am happy to say that I do not answer in the House for the activities of the Foreign Minister of Turkey. He must decide what he decides.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will review the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the sale of military equipment to Chile.

No, Sir. Each application for the sale of military equipment to Chile is considered on its merits. As with other countries with an unsatisfactory human rights record, we withhold permission for the sale of items likely in our judgment to be used for internal repression.

Does the Minister agree that the laughter from the Opposition Benches shows that the Government in their answers on human liberty throughout the world have put themselves in an awful mess as it is clear that they speak with forked tongues, because they support liberty in one area but not in another? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in Chile a brutal monetarist Government are suppressing the people, as are the Government of El Salvador? Does he agree that, although the British Government have raised their voice, for whatever reason, in so-called defence of the people of Poland, they have utterly failed to say one word about the misery of people in the Latin American orbit and have supported every brutal and terrible dictatorship all over the world, unless it happened to be in the Communist orbit?

If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to look at these matters objectively—I am not sure that he is—he will know that I have already made it plain, with regard to the sale of arms, that we do not sell arms that are likely to be used for internal repression.

That is not true.

Is not my hon. Friend correct in this policy, especially as Her Majesty's Government confine sales in these delicate areas to military equipment alone? Will he bear in mind, in these considerations, the flagrant attitude of some arms exporting nations, such as the French, who have not our scruples and who will export any arms, military equipment or crowd control equipment to anywhere in the world?

I shall bear my hon. Friend's points in mind. There is to be a general discussion at the United Nations about the use of conventional arms in the world. Britain fully supports the view that there should be a debate on this matter.

Does the Minister accept that there is a contradiction between the view expressed a moment ago by his right hon. Friend about the Government's detestation of violations of human rights wherever they may occur and their justification for the interruption of normal commercial and financial relations with Poland being the violation of human rights there? At the same time, we are selling weapons of war to a country in which violations of human rights are at least as great and have been going on for much longer. How on earth can the Minister justify that contrast?

We should look at each country on its merits. It is important to stress again that we do not sell equipment that is likely to be used for internal repression.

asked the Lord Privy Seal how many investment protection agreements have been concluded with countries in Africa.

Four such agreements have been signed with countries in Africa. Of these agreements, two—with Egypt and Lesotho—are in force and two—with Senegal and Sierra Leone—await ratification and/or the completion of constitutional procedures.

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, may I ask him whether he accepts the importance of private investment to the development of economies in the Third world, especially in the light of his Government's decision to cut the aid programme? Will he assure the House that the Government will renew their efforts to conclude more investment protection agreements with developing countries, in order that private flows of capital may play a more constructive part in the development of those countries?

The hon. Gentleman asked about Africa, but world-wide we have signed 16 of these agreements since 1976, and 10 of them have been signed since the Government came into office. We have now approached most countries in Africa about the possibility of concluding such agreements with them. I agree that they are very important.

Have any negotiations been carried on with Ghana? What is the present position concerning British investment in Ghana since the takeover of the Government by Mr. Rawlings?

I would need to look into that matter. I shall write to my hon. Friend about it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any meetings are planned with Egyptian leaders.

As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has invited President Mubarak of Egypt to visit Britain on 6–7 February.

Will the Minister say whether this is a preliminary to a conference in which Britain takes an initiative on the Middle East, or is the position that we have lost any influence that we had in that area?

No, Sir. I should have thought that recent events have shown that we have a very clear influence. We want to keep in close touch with the Egyptian Government, who have a crucial part to play. Therefore, it is very good news that the President of Egypt is coming here this weekend.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the forthcoming visit to Zimbabwe by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

My right hon. and noble Friend is much looking forward to his visit to Zimbabwe from 25 to 27 February at the invitation of the Zimbabwe Government.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will the Foreign Secretary be having further discussions with the Government of Zimbabwe in relation to the African resettlement programme and the progress that it is making.. and on whether Britain can play an even greater role in financing that programme than it is playing today?

I know that my right hon. and noble Friend will be looking forward to a discussion about the economic situation in Zimbabwe and how our own aid programme is going. As my hon. Friend—who takes a great interest in Zimbabwe—knows, the amount of money that we are giving through my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development for Land resettlement amounts to £30 million of British taxpayers' money. Only a small beginning has been made in the use of that money, but I understand that progress is now being made on the resettlement programme.

What will the Foreign Secretary be able to tell the Government of Zimbabwe about steps taken by the British Government to prevent the South African-backed guerrillas from blowing up railway lines in order to stop the export of Zimbabwe's maize surplus to those surrounding black African States that are going short of food as a result of the deliberate actions of the South African Government?

Clearly it is in the British Government's interest to see stability in Southern Africa and a sensible practical relationship between Zimbabwe and South Africa. In that connection I have noted—as no doubt the hon. Gentleman has—that the South African Government have decided to give back to the Zimbabwe Government a considerable number of locomotives, which will enable them to use their railway system to greater effect. I have also noticed that the South African Government have suggested that Zimbabwe might now like to renew the trade agreement between Zimbabwe and South Africa.

Will my hon. Friend say whether the Foreign Secretary intends to raise with the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister of Zimbabwe the ability of those who have left Zimbabwe to withdraw their assets? Is he aware that there could well be a scheme whereby as much public investment from other countries was made into Zimbabwe as was withdrawn by those who have sought, for one reason or another, to leave the country, so that Zimbabwe would not be worse off by the withdrawal of those assets?

I know that my hon. Friend, together with other hon. Members, has shown a great interest in and concern for the problem. We have expressed our concern to the Zimbabwe Government about the effect upon British citizens of certain foreign exchange controls, which have existed in one form or another in that country for a long time. I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend will wish to discuss the general economic situation, which has a strong bearing on foreign exchange controls.

Mr. Healey—Mr. Bob Cryer.

rose—

Order. I should like to make it clear to the House that I was not mistaking the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). I had misunderstood the look on the right hon. Gentleman's face.

We have a very united front today, by the way, Mr. Speaker.

The question would be better directed to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, but the House might like to know that he, too, will be visiting Zimbabwe very shortly—just before my right hon. and noble Friend—and will have a chance to talk about the aid programme when he gets there.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made about the situation in Poland; and if he will make a statement.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend).

I agree that we must organise the strongest possible international support in favour of free trade unionism and against the military dictatorship in Poland, but would it not be more effective if there were more consistency and less hypocrisy on the part of the British Government?

The Government are being entirely consistent in their approach to Poland. We have condemned, and continued to condemn, the activities of the military regime there. We are concerting our efforts to discover the most appropriate and effective steps that we can take against it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many jobs in the United Kingdom depend upon trade with the Eastern bloc? Does he agree that before we embark upon any trade sanctions against Poland or Russia we should be certain, first, that Western security demands them and, secondly, that they will be effective?

That is why it is necessary that we should consult our allies about the most effective steps. We must also be sure that anything that we do does not damage us more than it damages the Russians.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Economic Community foreign policy.

The Ten continue to cooperate closely on all aspects of foreign policy. During the United Kingdom Presidency, Foreign Ministers agreed the London report on European political co-operation, which incorporates practical measures to improve the speed and efficiency of political co-operation.

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

I agree with that. We have made progress and the first British official is already serving on the staff.

Does the Venice declaration still represent the consensus in Western Europe about the Middle East? What steps will the Western European countries take to bring the Palestine Liberation Organisation into the mainstream of negotiations?

The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question is "Yes". Secondly, we shall continue to urge on all parties in the Middle East the approach that has been outlined in the Venice declaration and try to bring those parties to accept the principles set out in it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the new President of the Assembly of the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend has no plans at present for a meeting with the new President of the European Parliament, though a meeting at some future date is possible, but I expect he will meet him on some occasion before long.

Is the Minister aware that the Common Market and/or its Assembly cannot declare itself to be in favour of human rights in the Third world for as long as it refuses to concern itself with American interference in El Salvador? Will he call upon the President to condemn the recent allocation of $100 million by President Reagan to buy guns to stoke up the war atrocities in El Salvador—a war that has already resulted in over 30,000 casualties?

The hon. Gentleman has not studied the statement on El Salvador, put out by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten last year. If he had, he would not draw such violent conclusions about our policy.

Will my right hon. Friend suggest that the Belgian President of the Council of Ministers and the new President of the European Parliament should have a formal meeting to discuss how the Community can be taken forward with concerted policies, as it has become clear and self-evident that it cannot be left in the unreliable hands of the European Council?

I am sure the the new President, who is a lively and energetic person, will find an opportunity before long to make his views known on these subjects. However, we are not likely, in the foreseeable future, to have a fundamental change in the treaties. It will remain true that the basic decisions of the Community will be taken by the Council of Ministers.

Given that Mr. Dankert is lively and vigorous, as the Minister said, will he ask him to use his good offices, as a Dutch Socialist, with the British Labour Party and perhaps lead it to a more reasonable approach to the European Community?

I have the impression that, increasingly, members of the European Socialist parties despair of the Labour Party in that respect.

Will my right hon. Friend also ask the President to advise the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and his constituents of the real benefits that the mining industry has received from a whole range of EEC grants?

I notice that there is increasing confusion in the Labour Party on the subject and that it is now looking for some compromise formula to get it out of an impossible position.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise with Community Foreign Ministers the adverse effect upon United Kingdom interests of national arrangements in other member States that are not in accordance with the principles and policies of the Community.

Ministers regularly raise such problems in the appropriate Community forum.

Is the Minister aware that in many ways, including the use of defensive bureaucratic arrangements, other member States seem much keener to protect their economies than do the Government? Is he aware of the effect upon our special steels industry of the use of subsidised cheap electricity? How does he propose to respond to such unfair practices? When will he take action about the promised additional steps to protect the French

In both of the cases raised by the hon. Gentleman we have consistently drawn attentior to the need for stricter policing of national aids by the Community. The recent steps announced by France were raised at a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 26

Does my right hon. Friend know about the flagrant disregard by the Danish Government of the agreement that was reached on herring fishing in the North Sea? Is he aware that the Danes have increased their fishing tenfold above the agreed allowance? Does the matter fall within his province and will it he raised at his level rather than at an agricultural level, because it is a

I agree that it is very important. It falls primarily to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to raise such matters, but if they affect the way in which the Community works, and if countries are disregarding the principles of Community operations, they can and will be discussed at the General Affairs Council.

Other than making protests, are the Government prepared, if necessary, to take unilateral action where our interests are adversely affected by the action of other European States?

The Government wish to do two things; first, to forward the interests of the Community and, secondly, to protect the interests of Britain—

Secondly?

We have consciously decided to join the Community. We are anxious to forward the interests of the Community and our interests as a member of it. I refer the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) to what my right hon. Friend said yesterday about the benefits that accrue to Britain from membership of the Community. Our aim is to improve the operations of the Community and to make sure that it works in a way that does not damage Britain.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to take any steps to celebrate 10 years of United Kingdom membership of the European Economic Community on 1 January 1983.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the United Kingdom will complete its first 10 years of membership of the European Community on 1 January 1983. No specific steps are envisaged by the Government for celebrating the event.

May I make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend? During the referendum campaign, the "Minister of Propaganda" sent round an unsolicited document to every household in the Land setting out the purported benefits of Community membership. To celebrate the tenth anniversary on 1 January 1983, will my right hon. Friend send out the facts to everyone, stating particularly that it has cost £1 million a day since we have been members of the Community, that we have had a £2 billion deficit in manufactures during the past four years, that it has cost us £500 million net on the balance of payments in cash terms and that we have been force-fed French food at over twice world market prices—or will we have more propaganda?

I cannot answer for the activities of the so-called "Minister of Propaganda" at the time of the referendum campaign. That was nothing to do with our party. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that people should understand properly, and he is among those who ought to do so. He ought to know, because he asked me a question about it in the House only a few days ago, that our membership of the European Community last year did not cost £1 million a day. Our adjusted contribution, following the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister with the Community in 1980, came to £1 million a week.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. Before I take the point of order, I remind the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) that if he is about to tell me that he wishes to raise the matter on the Adjournment he will stop any further supplementary questions from being called.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend should know that a Treasury answer said that membership cost £500 million last year.

rose—

There cannot be a point of order about the passing of information. I call Mr. Reg Race.

I am Ron Leighton.

Order. I apologise to both hon. Members, but they are from the same stable. Mr. Ron Leighton.

I recognise that you have had difficulties today Mr. Speaker. Will the Lord Privy Seal accept that we are "celebrating" the tenth anniversary by having the worst ever relations with our European partners? Did he notice the report in The Times on Saturday by its Brussels correspondent, who said that after what he called the total collapse of the meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, the two peacemakers, Leo Tindemans and Gaston Thorn, who were asked to tour the capitals of the Common Market to seek an amicable agreement on reforms, agreed that there was no point in doing so, because the talks were doomed to failure?

I refute both points that the hon. Gentleman made. Relations between ourselves and our Community partners are good, even though we have our differences. We are all still seeking to achieve what the Heads of Government agreed we should seek to achieve. Secondly, the Presidents of the Council and the Commission are not doing as the hon. Gentleman suggested. They are embarking on precisely the sort of discussions that they and we believe may lead to a solution.

Will my right hon. Friend think again about the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Would it not be a good idea on the tenth anniversary of our membership to set out to the British public the immense benefits that our country has enjoyed from membership and to show how, provided we put our own house in order, there are great treasures still to be won?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We do not need to wait until 1 January 1983 to do as he suggests. Ministers seek to do that all the time and we shall continue to do so. I was asked whether there should be a celebration on 1 January. I had to say, and I believe that I was right to do so, that we have no plans for that. We believe that it is more important to persuade the people of this country that the benefits are as my hon. Friend describes and to seek to persuade them that the right thing to do is to take advantage of the opportunities offered, rather than have a party.

If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, all is sweetness and light in the relationships between the Government and the other nine members of the Community, why was the mission of Leo Tindemans and Gaston Thorn set up? Did it not follow the total collapse of negotiations over the budget and the agriculture policy?

I was asked about relations between ourselves and our Community partners. I answered, correctly, that relations are good and I went on to say that there are differences of view about how the problems identified by the Heads of Government should be solved. We are seeking to solve them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made towards agreement on the European Economic Community budget.

There were further discussions on Community budget reform at the informal meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels on 25 January. Unfortunately, it did not prove possible to reach agreement, but it was agreed that the Presidents of the Council and of the Commission should sound out member States with a view to finding a solution. I shall be making a statement on the separate issue of the 1982 Community budget after questions.

In the light of some of the questions from "little Englanders," does my right hon. Friend accept that there is a need constantly to put before the House and the public the advantages to be derived by Britain from remaining within the Community and continuing to contribute towards its strength, but that public acceptability of the case will depend largely on the settlement reached in relation to our financial contribution? Does he agree that until that is settled it would be premature to proceed with the 1982 budget?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the settlement of the future of the Community budget and our problem are matters that deeply concern everybody in this country. That is why we are spending considerable time and effort i a seeking to persuade our European partners that a just and reasonable settlement should be reached. We have not yet reached agreement, but we are able to discuss the issues with our European partners without falling out or having the disagreements and rows that Labour Members constantly believe that we have—presumably because whenever they disagree with one another they have rows.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the question of the budget, as on other matters, we accept that the Government's priorities are as set out by the right hon. Gentleman in his initial reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), when he said that the first priority was the Community's interest and that, only second, came the British national interest? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Hull, which once had more than 100 trawlers, now has fewer than 10, and also has more than 1,000 fishermen unemployed, empty fish houses and people out of work in the fishing and processing industries? All that has been caused by the failure of the Community either to achieve a proper common fisheries policy or to find ways of assisting regions that have been adversely affected by the policies of the Community. The first priority of any Community budget—

Order. I hope to call other hon. Members before the end of Question Time.

The advantages to this country of belonging to the Community are considerable, as I and other Ministers have repeatedly said, and we intend to go on saying it. We must seek to make the Community work better, because that will increase the advantages to us and other members. Therefore, that is what we are seeking to do the entire time. In relation to the points made by the hon. Gentleman about the budget and other matters, our objective is to make the Community work better.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary in the negotiations not just to seek a reduction in the agricultural fund, but to seek a wider basis for the regional and social funds?

We have consistently put forward that point of view and there is a wide measure of agreement among Community members that the regional and social funds should be developed. We have been seeking agreement that the amount spent on the CAP, as a percentage of the total Community budget, should be gradually reduced.

Mr. Eric Heffer.

Here comes the statesman.

Will the Government on this occasion be genuinely serious about the future budget negotiations? We have had continual negotiations in the past, but no permanent settlement has been reached. It is estimated that the contribution will be about £1,400 million. May we know now—I press the right hon. Gentleman as I pressed him the other day—whether the Government are genuinely serious this time and will make a stand on behalf of the British people?

The figure that the hon. Gentleman used is the unadjusted contribution. He knows that that will be adjusted because of the stand that the Government took in 1980. The arrangements made in 1980 apply to 1981 and 1982. Therefore, in practice, that will not be our contribution. Our determination to solve the problem is as great as it was in 1980, and is a good deal stronger than anything that the hon. Gentleman's Government put up.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last question by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), and many other questions this afternoon, shows the illogicality of those who are persistently hostile to British membership of the Community, in that when there is agreement in the Community the Government are attacked for not maintaining British interests, but when the British Government maintain British interests Government critics exalt in what they allege to be disagreement and disarray among our Community partners?

Yes. I have never detected much logic in the Opposition's position.

Order. Before we go on to the statement I wish to apologise sincerely to the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton). I should not have passed a comment that was open to misinterpretation. That is the price of trying to be too clever in a hurry.