asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made by the contact group towards securing the independence of Namibia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment of the current position of the progress of Namibia to independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress being made towards an agreed and internationally recognised settlement in Namibia.

Most of the issues covered by the United Nations plan have been resolved during recent informal consultations between the Western Five and representatives of the front-line States and SWAPO. On 1 October I reviewed progress with other Foreign Ministers of the Five, and we issued a communiqué. With permission, I shall circulate the text in the Official Report.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, while this gentle dialogue goes on amiably year after year, thousands of people are being massacred and murdered by South African troops in both Angola and Namibia—

Rubbish.

—and that the economy of Angola is being destroyed by constant incursions by the regular forces of South Africa? What pressure is being brought on South Africa to deal honestly and straightforwardly with this matter?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that discussions on a solution for Namibia have been going on for a very long time. However, in recent months there has undoubtedly been a general desire on all sides, including the South African Government, to try to bring the dispute to a conclusion. The discussions that have taken place under the auspices of the United Nations and the other negotiations in this respect have been making progress. Most of the outstanding problems have now been resolved, but that does not mean that the matter has been brought to a conclusion. However, there are hopeful prospects. We shall give the fullest support that we can to all our friends in the region. Much depends in this case, as in many others, on the negotiations of the United States with both Angola and South Africa. Progress is being made. I can only say that I hope that in due course it will be brought to a successful conclusion this time.

Is it not unfair to the ordinary people of Namibia that the continuing prejudices of the United Nations General Assembly and the procrastination by SWAPO should prevent direct elections? Is it not time that Her Majesty's Government took the initiative over the independence of Namibia, perhaps by providing leadership in terms of international loans for much-needed infrastructure in that country?

My hon. Friend's last suggestion may have some effect when a settlement is reached. No one could possibly claim that success has yet been achieved, but I have been doing precisely what my hon. Friend suggests. I have been giving such leadership as I can, together with the other members of the Five, and progress is being made. I am doing all that I can to maintain that progress.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the long and continuing delay here is harmful to our relations with other African States, not to mention the fact that it represents a running sore at various international conferences? Does he further agree that the danger now is that this delay on the part of the West may appear to be deliberate? Will he urge our American friends, linkage or no linkage, to get a move on?

They are doing that. I do not accept my hon. Friend's strictures. This is a long-outstanding dispute, and deep conflicting interests have to be reconciled. That is why it has proved to be so difficult. However, there is now an opportunity of its being brought to a successful conclusion, and we are doing our best to further that aim.

Does the Secretary of State agree that linkage is the latest excuse among many for many years now on the part of South Africa to delay further freedom for Namibia? Does he agree with Mr. Cheysson that linkage is unacceptable, which is the view of France, West Germany and Canada? If so, what will he do to hasten a solution to this matter? Will he entertain the idea of sanctions against South Africa if delay continues?

Sanctions would not be helpful. The French Foreign Minister and I, together with other members of the contact group, recognise that the Cuban withdrawal does not fall within Security Council resolution 435. The collective efforts of the Five are confined to a search for a Namibian settlement. However, the Five share the objective of achieving an early solution to the problem and recognise that a settlement would strengthen peace and security and foster economic development in the region. We must also take into account the political realities in South Africa, and that we are undoubtedly doing.

I have recently returned from Namibia—[Interruption.] Labour Members are not prepared to go there.

There are undoubtedly other ways in which negotiations could have been conducted. My hon. Friend has a point of view, which I recognise. The contact Five have discussed how best to proceed with the negotiations and have decided that the United States should continue to play a predominant role vis-a-vis Angola and South Africa. We have had discussions with the front-line States' leaders at the United Nations, and we felt that was the best way to achieve success.

What about internal parties?

My hon. Friend has a view about how it might be done. We have discussed how to bring the extremely complex and difficult consultations to a successful conclusion and have proceeded on that basis.

The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the United States and the State Secretary of the Foreign Office of the Federal Republic of Germany met in New York on 1 October to take stock of the progress made in the Namibia negotiations since their previous meeting in Luxembourg on 18 May.

The Ministers reviewed the consultations which took place during July and August in New York between the Contact Group and representatives of the Front Line States and SWAPO, and the concurrent consultations with South Africa. They expressed satisfaction with the results of these discussions.

The Ministers welcomed the agreement of the parties to the negotiations to the Constitutional Principles for the Namibia Constituent Assembly. They noted that all parties had agreed that the method to be ,employed to elect the Constituent Assembly would be decided in accordance with the terms of UNSCR 435, and insisted that the issue should not cause delay in the implementation of UNSCR 435. They expressed appreciation of the constructive and flexible attitude of the parties, which enabled substantial progress to be made on impartiality and the size, composition and deployment of the military component of UNTAG. They noted that, on September 24, representatives of the Front Line States, Nigeria, SWAPO and the Contact Group had reported to the Secretary-General on the results of the consultations which had taken place.

The Ministers reiterated their commitment to the early implementation of SCR 435 in order to enable the people of Namibia to exercise their right to self-determination and to bring peace and security to the region. They paid tribute to the efforts already made by the Secretary-General and his staff and agreed that arrangements for the implementation of the plan were proceeding satisfactorily.

The Ministers agreed that a valuable opportunity now existed to achieve a settlement within the time frame envisaged which would strengthen peace and security and foster economic development in the region. They noted that the objective of achieving such a settlement was shared by all Contact Group governments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest position regarding all forms of aid to Poland.

Her Majesty's Government have given financial and other assistance, both nationally and through the European Community, for humanitarian aid to Poland through voluntary and Church agencies.

Does my hon. Friend share the nation's disgust and abhorrence at the brutal suppression of Solidarity, the viciousness shown to people mourning for those who suffered in the wake of it, and the hated and unending imposition of martial law in Poland? Do not those facts and others highlight the need to encourage the sending of all possible British aid, voluntary and otherwise, direct to the people of Poland via the Churches?

The Government have already made clear to the Polish Government their abhorrence of the legislation abolishing, or seeking to abolish, Solidarity. Indeed, the Polish people have made clear their views on their Government's action.

The Tories seem to believe in free and genuine trade unions as long as they exist in Eastern Europe. Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in the British Labour movement over the banning of Solidarity, the measures that have recently been taken and the general repression of working people in Poland today?

The hon. Gentleman insults Polish trade unionists, who, I am certain, would be delighted to have the system of trade unionism that will exist in the United Kingdom after the legislation has been approved by the House.

On this day when Poland is burying a young steel worker as a result of the recent conflicts there, is my hon. Friend aware of the sense of horror and outrage felt by British people at the way in which Polish secret police, wearing plain clothes, have been shooting down workers in cold blood? Will the Government take every possible step to increase the sanctions imposed on the Polish Government?

I share my hon. Friend's abhorrence of some of the incidents that have taken place. I informed the Polish ambassador of the Government's view when I saw him some days ago. The European Community is at present considering an appropriate response to the developments in Poland.

Is the Minister aware that the House clearly supports any move to give aid to the Polish people and therefore commends the initiative taken by the European Community that the hon. Gentleman has outlined today? I am sure that the House would also wish the Government to take every opportunity to underline the repugnance of the British people at the latest crude attempts that are being made to crush the Polish people's desire to create new and free institutions in that troubled country.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support of the position taken not just by the British Government but by the European Community. I have no doubt that if the Western nations express their abhorrence in the strongest terms it will not only be noted by the Polish Government but will give considerable support to the Polish people, who need all the support that they can get at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the United States Government.

I met the United States Secretary of State for bilateral talks in New York on 28 September. I have no plans for a further meeting with representatives of the United States Administration in the immediate future, although I shall continue to keep in regular contact with the Americans. The agenda of any meeting would depend on the circumstances at the time.

Is it not about time that the British Government adopted a tougher line over American policies which are a threat to jobs in Scotland and elsewhere in the United Kingdom—for example, the Siberian pipeline sanctions and the threat of penal duties being imposed tomorrow on British Steel Corporation exports?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, negotiations on steel have endured now for some weeks. They have been undertaken by the Community on behalf of all member countries, and the hope is that it will be possible for an agreement to be signed tomorrow. I cannot tell the House at the moment whether that will be possible. It is under consideration today by, amongst others, the German Government. I hope that that agreement will be achieved, but we must wait and see. If it is, the consequences for the British steel industry will be significantly less serious than they would be otherwise. We have been active in the negotiations.

Are not our chances of obtaining a softening of the American position over steel imports greater as a member of the European Community than standing by ourselves? Are there not signs that the American Adminstration are seeking a way out of the impasse on the Siberian gas pipeline? What can my right hon. Friend do to improve the situation and encourage a solution?

Whereas some hon. Members believe that it will be easier to negotiate on our own, few people in the industry agree. Certainly the Community believes that the argument is infinitely stronger if it is done on a Community basis. That is why we agreed to do that.

On steel, if the European Community reaches a common position today, as we all hope, and the Americans fail to respond to it, will the right hon. Gentleman take the initiative in seeking European retaliation against any American sanctions on European steel?

Order. The right hon. Gentleman touches a tender chord. If everyone asks three questions, we shall be in difficulty, but he can ask his third question.

As always, Mr. Speaker, I bow to your superior wisdom.

It would be wrong of me, and I do not intend to do so, to anticipate the possibility of failure to reach agreement tomorrow in the steel talks. The importance of reaching that agreement is very clear to us, and we have used our influence to try to ensure that there is such an agreement.

asked the Secretary of state for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of Her Majesty's Government's policy in relation to securing a settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the prospects for lasting peace between Israel and her neighbours.

The statement by the Foreign Ministers of the Ten on 20 September reaffirmed our commitment to the search for a comprehensive peace settlement based on the mutual acceptance of Palestinian and Israeli rights. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has demonstrated once again the urgent need for progress. We shall continue to work closely with all the parties concerned towards that end. I have recently held discussions on these matters in Damascus and Cairo, and shall be visiting Amman in November. I also met Mr. Shamir in New York in late September. I believe that President Reagan's proposals and the declaration of the Arab summit at Fez together represent a very important opportunity to make progress towards peace.

rose—

Order. I shall call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

As the denial of self-determination to the Palestinian people is the root cause of the conflict in the Middle East, do the Government accept that the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which is manifestly the representative body of the Palestinian nation, ought to be included among the bodies to which the Secretary of State proposes to speak? Will he especially stress to the American Administration the importance of self-determination and the involvement of the PLO in negotiations?

We have given great emphasis to the principle of self-determination. We have done so in our own right and in concert with our European allies in the Venice declaration of 1980, to which we still adhere. It is true that the Reagan plan does not include that word, but as an initiative it is infinitely closer to our position than anything that the American Administration have done before. From that point of view, we ragard it as a significant advance.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the dreadful events in Lebanon this summer make it clearer than ever that a sovereign State must be established where Palestinian Arabs can be safe from persecution? As he is clearly prepared to discuss this question with practically everyone else, will he now say that he is prepared to meet the acknowledged representatives of the Palestinian people to discuss the way in which Britain and Europe can help to set up a Palestinian State?

Our meetings with the PLO continue at official level. It may be that in due course that will be altered. I have no objection to that in principle on the conditions that I have stated. A Palestinian State is one possible way of fulfilling the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, but there are other ways of doing so. In the end it is for the Palestinians to decide. A Palestinian State is an option, and that is where it remains as far as I am concerned.

When is the commission from the Arab summit at Fez likely to visit the United Kingdom? Who will be members of that commission and who will they meet? As regards a meeting between Ministers and PLO representatives, does my right hon. Friend agree that the rejection of terrorism by the Palestinians, which many people would support, should no longer be a condition precedent, given the fact that the Israeli Government have exhibited far greater tendencies towards terrorism, particularly the massacre at Sabra and Shatila, where, while 2,000 people were being killed, they were launching star shells and allowing people to carry on with that massacre?

It is for the Arab League to decide, but I understand that the commission will consist of representatives from Morocco, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Most of them are likely to come to London after they have visited the United States. I expect that to be in early November.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for the Reagan initiative. Does he accept that the continuing refusal of a number of Arab countries clearly and unequivocally to recognise the right of Israel to exist is a major obstacle to the negotiations between the interested countries, which are essential if we are to achieve a lasting peace? In that connection, will he confirm that the Government would totally condemn any move to expel Israel from the United Nations and would not participate in that organisation if the principle of universality ceased to apply?

There is no doubt whatever that Israel must, and does, have the right to exist. The Government have always supported that position. It is one of the fundamental foundations of a peace-making process and it is fully recognised in the Reagan initiative.

Wilt the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why, as yet, it appears that the British Government have never offered any peacekeeping units for the Lebanon? Are we prepared to offer peacekeeping units either to a multilateral force or to a United Nations force? Does he believe that it will be necessary to have a United Nations force in southern Lebanon?

We would want any State that existed to be demilitarised. We would want the whole area, and Israel to be demilitarised, for that matter. Obviously, the lower the level of force, the better.

In supporting the Reagan plan, as my right hon. Friend does and as I do, will he confirm that it explicitly rules out an independent Palestinian State on the West Bank? When he met the President of Syria, did he stress the need for the withdrawal of Syrian armed forces from Lebanon as soon as possible?

I do not think that the Reagan plan rules out that independent State, although President Reagan has made public comments which could bear that interpretation. I think it is a matter of options.

Is the Secretary of State aware that a minute or two ago he called for the demilitarisation of Israel? Will he explain to the House how that could be achieved?

In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, I remind him that I was responding to a question from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) concerning the demilitarised nature of an independent Palestine State, if such were to be created. I responded positively to that question and intended to convey to the House that the less militarisation there was there the better it would be.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the present state of the Western Alliance; and if he will make a statement.

Basically yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a growing body of opinion in Britain and in other countries would not share the degree of optimism that he has expressed? If he agrees, will he give an undertaking that Her Majesty's Government will use every endeavour to improve effectiveness in areas where the Western Alliance is clearly and increasingly deficient and unsatisfactory?

I have never been complacent about NATO, either as Secretary of State for Defence or in any other capacity, because there is always room for improvement. We know that recently there have been a number of strains on NATO. I have been exercising such influence as I have in recent weeks in trying to cure them. I shall do everything that I can to improve its effectiveness.

Is not one main concern the failure of the United States Government to consult their allies before making crucial decisions affecting Europe? Will he tell the United States Government that unilateralism of that kind is most unwise if the Alliance is to remain united, and that the alliance is just as important to the United States as it is to Europe?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There was one incident which led to a decision being taken by the United States before there had been adequate consultation, and it has led to a great deal of complication. One of the purposes of the weekend that NATO Foreign Ministers had in Canada two and a half weeks ago was to try to repair that damage. It was a very successful meeting and at the end of it there was a profound degree of accord. It is true that we did not solve the problem that caused the immediate difficulty. Indeed, we did not seek to do that. What we sought to do was to make quite clear the basic principles of the Alliance and the job that it is doing, and ensure that the way that we are fulfilling it is adequate. There was a great deal of accord.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Western Alliance is made to look almost absurd if it cannot have a concerted and agreed response to any political, military or civil oppression organised by Russia? Does he agree that at best it makes us look foolish and that at worst it positively encourages the Russians to go ahead with civil and military pressures in other parts of the globe?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. What we sought to do the other weekend in Canada and on earlier occasions, and are seeking now to do, is not to get into that position again. It is almost in that sole instance that there was a failure of communication and consultation. We must get this in proportion. Naturally, the matter has attracted a great deal of attention, and rightly so, but let us not get it out of proportion. Taking the whole range of work done by the Alliance, undoubtedly the cohesion and the health of the Alliance are in a very good state.

Is it not the case that President Reagan took unilateral action, after the banning of Solidarity, by deciding to deny Poland the benefits of the most-favoured-nation clause? Is it not also the case that President Reagan yesterday announced that he plans to triple the amount of grain that America is able to send to Russia, and also to obligate the United States Government to observe the sanctity of contract—something that he is punishing his European Allies for doing? Are not the hypocrisy and political opportunism of the American President in that regard a major threat to the Alliance, which, so far, Europe has done absolutely nothing to mitigate?

Up to a point I certainly agree with the right hon. Gentleman. [Interruption.] I do, and those are the issues that we have been discussing among ourselves. The question of the United States increasing its exports of food to Russia is one that we have been discussing very much. The United States Government say that they are getting hard cash for it and that that will not be the position when gas is sold. That is part of the argument. We have set up a number of studies and are going in considerable depth into the economic relationship between East and West, to try to establish a framework within which we can all work, so that unilateral actions of that kind, taken by any Government, do not recur. The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is very important and we have attached importance to it. We regret that there should be a lack of consultation about a decision by any member of the Alliance, but it happened and we are trying to make sure that it does not happen again.

President Reagan said yesterday that in certain circumstances, which I would oppose, he would end the sanctions against European firms that are exporting goods for the pipeline. As he is now prepared to negotiate, is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to say to President Reagan "Yes, we are prepared to negotiate but you must suspend sanctions until the negotiations are concluded"?

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that neither President Reagan nor Secretary of State Schultz are in any doubt about Her Majesty's Government's position or the Community's position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last attended an EEC Council of Ministers meeting at which industrial matters were discussed.

The Foreign Affairs Council on 21 and 22 September, which my right hon. Friend attended, discussed measures taken by the United States against our steel industry and the Community's external regime for steel trade.

As unfair competition is now killing off the British steel industry—and bearing in mind the dumping of steel exports by our European partners, as well as by the United States in recent weeks—will the Minister make it clear at the next meeting that contraction in the Britsh Steel industry has gone far enough, that the sweeping disregard for Community policies which our partners have shown can no longer be tolerated and that a necessary priority will be given to our own national interests?

In supporting the Davignon regime we have made it clear that within the regime there should be fair burden-sharing between the different steel industries of Europe. As my right hon. Friend has said, our concern has been that the agreement negotiated between the Community and the United States on 6 August should be honoured. Since my right hon. Friend answered an earlier question we have heard from Bonn that the German Cabinet decided this morning that the deal is acceptable to it provided that z small number of essentially technical matters can be cleared up. We hope that this will clear the way for the implementation of this agreement, which is important for the British steel industry.

I welcome the information that my right hon. Friend has just given, but will he recognise, as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) has said, that there are many problems within the Community that have an effect on the British Steel Corporation? What representations will my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary be making at the next meeting to ensure that the main culprits within the Community who do not observe the Davignon proposals are brought to book?

It is true that the British Steel Corporation started its restructering and contraction before most of our partners' steel industries. That happened because it had to take that action. There is no doubt that recently other EC States have initiated capacity reductions, and it is clear that these are causing them difficulties. In the first seven months of 1982 British steel production rose by 1 per cent. and total EC production fell by 3 per cent.

The decision of the Bonn Government is welcome news, but is the Minister aware that steel imports have increased by 40 per cent. in the past 12 months and that we get 67 per cent. of our steel imports from EEC countries? As my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) said, a part of our imports comes from dumping. Surely the Government must face these facts if they are to save our steel industry. Do they understand that the House and the country will be interested to know what precise proposals they have to deal with the problem?

There is no doubt that without the Davignon plan our steel industry would be in a worse state and job losses would be greater. If there is evidence of unfair competition either from within the Community or outside, we shall act upon it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the grossly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's answer, I give notice diat I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects will be discussed at the next meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

I expect the next meeting of the Council of Foreign Affairs Ministers on 25 and 26 October to discuss the payment of our 1982 budget refunds and the Community's relations with the United States and with Japan. A number of other items are also likely to be on the Council's agenda. The Council of Fisheries Ministers is also due to meet on 25 and 26 October.

Will the Minister confirm that if that or a future Council meeting decides by a majority that Britain should further betray the pledges made to New Zealand about access for its dairy products, there will be little that he can do except to surrender as abjectly as his colleagues from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have done this week?

It has been possible in previous negotiations to reach an agreement and we hope to do so on this occasion.

When the Ministers next meet to discuss political co-operation, will my right hon. Friend stress to them the importance of Turkey to the Western Alliance as a whole? Will he ensure that we do not impose upon the Turkish people and Government any restrictions on their exports to the Community that will have a disastrous effect upon relationships? I refer especially to the Commission's proposal to lay an order within the next four days which will virtually wipe out the export of Turkish raisins to the European Community.

We regard Turkey as an extremely important member of the Alliance, and this subject may come up under the political co-operation heading. I imagine that this is likely to occur on 25 or 26 October. I shall keep my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if there is no agreement on a common fisheries policy very soon our relations with the Common Market will be damaged? Will he make it quite clear to the Europeans that when the present agreement ends at the end of the year we shall be unable, in the interests of conservation, to allow free fishing right up to our shores?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It has been a long drawn out negotiation and the issue is extremely important. All Community members have agreed except Denmark, which has been unwilling so far to put its signature to the agreement. We are trying to secure the Danes' signature and every other Community member is trying to do likewise. This is because it is such a critically important agreement to achieve before the end of the year. We are doing all that we can to that end.

Will there, among the many subjects that will be discussed at the next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Ministers, be a discussion of the current attitude of the Governments of Italy and Ireland towards the United Nations' resolution on Argentina and negotiations with that country? Will it not make a mockery of any sort of political co-operation or common foreign policy if we have members of the EEC voting all over the place in the General Assembly?

Strictly speaking that is not a Community matter. However, on a number of occasions, including last weekend, I have raised it with our partners in Europe. I have made the case, which to us is overwhelming, for not supporting the Latin American resolution. It is a hypocritical resolution and is unacceptable. I hope very much that it will not attract support.

Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity at the next Council meeting to stress the importance that the British Government attach to the community maintaining its commitment to a liberal trading regime around the world? Will he take steps to try to ensure that reality reflects the rhetoric and that we do not retreat into a sort of creeping protectionism, in which liberal trading dies the death of a thousand cuts?

The open trading system is extremely important to us and to the Community. We shall approach the GAIT ministerial meeting in that spirit. We hope that every other country will do likewise. We shall do everything that we can to preserve the system.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his objectives for EEC reform in 1983.

Our aims are to work with our partners to develop existing Community policies, to seek new policies which will benefit Britain and the Community, to try to change the CAP and to solve the budget problem.

As we have been trying for 10 years to get a new, permanent solution to the budget problem, and as the latest estimate, if there is no reform, is that we may have to pay £1,000 million net next year, will the Government make it clear that, in the absence of a firm agreement on a new fair contribution system, they would be willing to withhold contributions from the EEC?

Our objective is a reorganised budget that is fair not only to Britain but to every member of the Community. That is fundamentally necessary to the health of the Community. We shall seek to achieve that in negotiations for 1983 and later, which have not yet begun. I would not expect the Commission to put a proposal before us for a few weeks yet. That proposal will be the beginning of the negotiation that ensues. I shall bear in mind during the negotiations the points that my hon. Friend raises.

In view of the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that the level of employment in this country depends on our share of home and overseas markets, and bearing in mind that our current deficit in manufactured goods with the original EEC Six is running at £5·5 billion compared to a surplus of £6·6 billion with the rest of the world, will the right hon. Gentleman estimate how many jobs have been lost in this country by the trade deficit now inflicted upon us by the Common Market?

Not as many as would have been lost if we were not members of the Community.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of many people in the country who are favourably disposed towards the Community over the degree of European discriminaton against Commonwealth persons and products? Will my right hon. Friend see what can be done in the interests of the Community to bring the whole Commonwealth closer to Europe?

That is an objective that I certainly have in mind. I am a strong supporter of the Commonwealth and wish to do whatever I can to further its interests within the context of the Community. I shall keep in mind the important point that my hon. Friend has raised.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the speech of his right hon. Friend the Minister of State, made in Belgium on 20 September, when the right hon. Gentleman talked about future financing of the Community? His speech included the words:

"makes inevitable an examination by all member States of the future financing of the Community. There can be no preconditions in advance".

I think it means that we are going into the negotiations with an intelligent and open mind and that we shall not have any preconditions about increasing our own resources or anything else. It is a sensible way to start.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Council meetings of the European Economic Community have taken place since 1 September; and if he will make a statement concerning their conclusions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what meetings there have been of the Council of Ministers since the beginning of the Summer Recess; and what principal conclusions were reached.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many meetings of the Council of Ministers have taken place since the end of July ; and what decisions were taken.

Since the Summer Recess there have been four Council meetings, two in September and two so far this month. Of those, two were Agriculture Councils, one a Fisheries Council and one a Foreign Affairs Council. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly—I think, today—be arranging for the House to be informed of what happened at the Agriculture and Fisheries Councils. The Foreign Affairs Council dealt mainly with our budget refunds for 1982, Portuguese accession, Community relations with the United States and, in political co-operation, developments in the Middle East. I am arranging for a report to be published in the Official Report.

Is the Minister really satisfied with this manner of reporting to the House? Would it not be better, when the House is sitting, for Ministers to make periodic and regular oral reports to the House? Will he also confirm what the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has stated—that we are no longer holding the EEC to the 1 per cent. VAT limit?

It is for the House to say whether it is satisfied with the reports. My colleagues and I have tried to give the House the fullest and earliest information about meetings. The hon. Gentleman misquotes my right hon. Friend. The own resources of the Community are not exhausted and are not likely to be exhausted in the foreseeable future. This is, therefore, a hypothetical situation. If people wish to engage in a review of this matter together with related subjects we are willing to enter into such a review, but not on any precondition that own resoureces would be increased.

Will the Minister say whether the Common Market Ten, during the course of recent meetings, have made a statement or passed an appropriate resolution to the effect that they wish to see the release of the Moroka three, the three black South Africans who, because they committed themselves to fight apartheid, are now awaiting execution by the South African regime'' If, like the Nordic countries, the Common Market Ten did pass a resolution calling upon the South African Government to stop the execution of these three people, will he now, as one of the Ten, and on behalf of the Government, urge the South African Government to stop the executions?

So far as I can recall, no specific resolution has been passed, but the South African Government are in no doubt about our general view on the nature of the regime and the practices that occur under it.

In view of the importance of these meetings in sustaining employment, especially the steel decision and the Davignon plan, may we take it that, following the decision made today, I understand, by the German Government in Bonn to stand solidly with their European partners against American measures of retaliation that may have been instituted, the Council of Ministers will maintain the position, even though American private steel interests may object to their Government's activities?

If the German decision is confirmed, we hope that this will enable the Community to inform the United States of the situation in time for the necessary procedures to be adopted to relax the measures that it has announced. The urgency was precisely dictated by the timing of American legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend discourage speculation that Her Majesty's Government., in meeting difficulties over the budget, might be prepared to withhold the British contribution? Is it not clear from the tenor of all previous questions that this country stands to gain more than any other from a proper application and enforcement of the rules of the Community?

We are not talking at the present time about withholding. We are about to enter a new phase of negotiation. Our partners should be in no doubt about the key nature of this problem, which has not been solved and which will not go away until there is a permanent and satisfactory solution.

Has a clear undertaking been given by our United Nations partners to support the British attitude in the UN over the Falklands resolution?

My right hon. Friend has just answered a question on that point. Discussions are clearly continuing.

Has the Council of Ministers had the opportunity to reflect upon the petty nature of the constant stream of directives and resolutions that the Commission processes? If not, may I ask my right hon. Friend to make sure that, in the near future, the Council of Ministers takes steps to make certain that this flood of legislation ceases and that the Commission turns its mind to more important matters?

I imagine that my hon. Friend would exempt those measures pressed for by British industry in its wish to see non-tariff barriers to trade reduced across the Community. We are pressing hard for Community measures on insurance, on air fares, on banking and on transport, because we think that measures of this kind could enable British firms and businesses—it is certainly their view—to overcome remaining obstacles and do better in the Community.

What explanation do French Ministers give for the flow of ever-more sophisticated weaponry from Aerospatiale Dassault to Argentina? Is this not more than an academic question in view of the probing of the Phantoms by Mirages?

During the Falklands war the French Government co-operated effectively with us in this area, which the hon. Gentleman has consistently probed—

No, they did not.

Since then, they have—we regretted the timing—relaxed the arms embargo but have assured us that they will exercise their policy with prudence and restraint. Obviously, we watch the situation and keep in touch with them.

I wish to revert to the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend on resources. Is it not the case that we have laid down one precondition—that there should not in any circumstances be any increase in the 1 per cent. level of VAT contribution to the EEC budget? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this decision remains absolute and that the Government will stand by it regardless?

We see no case for enlarging the limit of own resources. In addition to what we have already said, we have said that any long-term review of the Community's financial resources must take account of the clear need—this must be embedded in it—for a solution to the problem of burden-sharing and the British budget contribution.

Has there recently been a decision about the sale of cheap butter to the Soviet Union, or any American objections to that sale, and if so, how do the Americans explain why they can sell wheat to the Soviet Union to make bread when we cannot sell butter?

There have been no such sales of subsidised Community butter to Russia since 1980. We oppose, and shall continue to oppose, such sales.

The Foreign Affairs Council met on 20 and 21 September, when there were four main subjects for consideration. There was a long discussion on the implementation of the agreement of 25 May on the United Kingdom's budget refunds for 1982 but Ministers were not able to reach agreement on how these were to be financed. This matter will be discussed again at the October Foreign Affairs Council, which is to be held next week.

At a ministerial level conference with the Portuguese in the margins of the Council agreement was reached on the Customs union chapter, including a regime to govern access of Portuguese textiles to the Community before and after accession. Agreement was also reached, with a few minor exceptions, on the external relations, taxation and European Coal and Steel Community chapters.

Discussions of Community relations with the United States naturally centred on the disputes over steel and the Siberian pipeline. On steel, the Community confirmed its willingness to implement the arrangements negotiated by the Commission with the United States Administration on 6 August, and expressed regret that no corresponding confirmation had so far been forthcoming from the United States side. It was agreed that contacts should continue with a view to securing a settlement as quickly as possible. The Council deplored the present dispute arising out of the American measures affecting the Siberian gas pipeline. Ministers expressed the wish to see relations with the United States in this area return to normal and noted both that member States were ready to continue contacts with the United States Administration and that the Community should be involved in due course where Community competence applied.

Ministers of the Ten, meeting in political co-operation, discussed the situation in the Middle East. They issued a statement strongly condemning the massacre of Palestinian civilians in Beirut and indicating their willingness to support, up to the limit of their capabilities, additional steps to ensure the safety of the civilian population. A copy of the statement has been placed in the Library of the House. They renewed their offer to assist in the relief and reconstruction of Lebanon. They repeated their belief that the Middle East could enjoy peace and stability only through a comprehensive settlement to be concluded with the participation of all parties, including the PLO. They welcomed the new American initiative contained in President Reagan's speech on 1 September and underlined the importance of the statement adopted by Arab Heads of State and Government at Fez on 9 September.

Foreign Ministers of the Ten also discussed ways of improving relations with the countries of Latin America.

In addition to those main issues the Council had further discussions on the Commission's proposal for aid to Central America but came to no conclusions.

The United Kingdom drew attention to the serious market conditions for steel in the Community and pressed the need for measures to protect the market from undue disruption in the remainder of 1982. We urged that at the October Council the Commission should put forward proposals for a negotiating mandate for further restraint arrangements with the major third country suppliers for 1983.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply about the Phantom Mirage issue, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.