§ 36. Mr. Murphyasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will direct the United Kingdom's period of Presidency of the Council of Ministers towards seeking co-operation on major issues to the benefit of the United Kingdom.
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe duty of the Presidency is to conduct the Council's business efficiently and to encourage co-operation. Among the major issues to be 314 considered during our Presidency is the problem of the Community's budget. At meetings on this subject, as at all Community meetings during our Presidency, our interests will be promoted by a separate United Kingdom delegation.
§ Mr. MurphyI thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, during our Presidency, we should seek to gain positive benefits from our membership of the Community while seeking to reduce excessive bureaucracy and unnecessary harmonisation?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI agree with my hon. Friend. I do not think that that is a matter particularly to be pursued during our Presidency, but certainly we favour positive co-operation, no unnecessary harmonisation, arid the diminution of bureaucracy at all times.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesI agree with the Lord Privy Seal that by far the most important issues will be the budgetary contributions and the restructuring of the budget. However, will he confirm that if no agreement is reached on the budget, in 1982 we shall be making a net contribution to the EEC budget of £1½ billion? Even if there is agreement on the proposals put forward by the Commission—and there is no certainty of that—we shall still be paying £850 million in 1982. Will the right hon. Gentleman reaffirm the commitment that we shall not agree to anything which leaves us not in broad balance in terms of contributions to the budget?
§ Sir Ian GilmourNo, I do not agree with either of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. First, I do not wish to assume in any way that there will not be an agreement, and, if there is, I do not know whence the right hon. Gentleman gets his figures. Secondly, if there is not an agreement, then, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it was part of the 30 May agreement that arrangements similar to those over the last few years should be put forward for 1982.
§ Mr. SquireDoes my right hon. Friend agree that future co-operation can only be damaged by the news that the Labour Party national executive committee is apparently now committed to taking us out of Europe within one year of any future Labour Government? Does he not find that strange, given the publicised views of previous leaders of that party? Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that, depressingly, that commitment appears to be based mainly on prejudice, intolerance and a selective use of statistics?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI certainly agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. I do not agree with the first part, because what the national executive committee did yesterday seems to be entirely in keeping with its usual behaviour and views, and I noted that both the leader and deputy leader of the party were overruled by the NEC.
§ Mr. Russell JohnstonReverting to the original question, surely the Lord Privy Seal agrees that the job of the Presidency is to secure co-operation in the interests of the Community as a whole, not in the interests of the countries of those persons who occupy the Chair.
§ Sir Ian GilmourI certainly agree with that. Indeed, it is exactly what I said.
§ 37. Mr. Knoxasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on foreign policy co-operation in the European Economic Community since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency.
§ 38. Mr. Cryerasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps have been taken towards obtaining a common foreign policy in European Economic Community member States.
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe Government have continued to be active in working for a common European approach to foreign policy questions since the United Kingdom assumed the Presidency at the beginning of July.
Foreign Ministers, on 13 July in Brussels, devoted part of their meeting to discussion of political co-operation matters. Ministers on that occasion looked at the Ten's proposals on Afghanistan in the light of the discussions that my right hon. and noble Friend had with the Soviet Foreign Minister about that proposal.
On 15 July my right hon. and noble Friend also attended the international conference on Cambodia where, on behalf of the Ten, he supported the proposals made by the countries of the association of South-East Asian nations.
There have been two meetings of political directors of the Ten.
§ Mr. KnoxIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Secretary's leadership so far, as President of the Council of Ministers, has greatly heartened those of us who believe that the Common Market is about bigger issues than the price of butter? Will he confirm that foreign policy co-operation will remain a high priority throughout the rest of Britain's Presidency?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. Certainly I confirm that one of the many matters on which we shall concentrate will be the improvement of political co-operation in foreign affairs.
§ Mr. CryerDoes the right hon. Gentleman accept that there will be strong resistance in the House and outside to the move towards subordinating this country at all times to a common EEC foreign policy, and that it is important that this country should be able to make a judgment on international affairs free from subordination either to the EEC or the United States of America? Will he confirm that that is the Government's view?
§ Sir Ian GilmourIt is only the hon. Gentleman who introduces the word "subordination". There is no question of our subordinating our policy to anyone else. We seek to co-operate with our partners so that the voice of Europe, with its 270 million people, is heard in the world. That objective is far less likely to lead to subordination than if each country acted purely on its own. Of course we have our own foreign policy and will continue to do so.
§ Mr. AmeryCan my right hon. Friend confirm that substantial quantities of Soviet war materials are reaching the PLO in Lebanon today through Syria and Libya? In view of the fact that President Reagan is temporarily withholding military supplies from Israel, should not my right hon. and noble Friend, in his capacity as President of the European Council of Foreign Ministers, make urgent representations to the Soviet Union to take steps to see that Soviet war material is not fed into that area of conflagration?
§ Sir Ian GilmourNo, I cannot confirm what my right hon. Friend said. We have no information that large 316 quantities of materials are reaching the PLO. As for the second part of the question, my right hon. Friend will realise that although President Reagan is withholding aircraft, he is continuing other arms supplies to Israel.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonHow many more cities can the Israeli air force bomb before the nations of the European Community consider cutting off diplomatic relations with Israel?
§ Sir Ian GilmourAs the hon. Gentleman may have heard earlier, we deplore the bombing of Beirut and the high civilian casualties that it caused. At the same time, as was said at the Ottawa summit, we deplore all violence in the Middle East.
§ Mr. Jim SpicerDoes my right hon. Friend accept that the stability of Turkey is vital not only to the European Community but to NATO? In that context, will he give an undertaking that during our Presidency we shall do all in our power to help Turkey not only to retain that stability but to return to a democratic form of Government?
§ Sir Ian GilmourI entirely accept what my hon. Friend said. The stability of Turkey is in the interests of the Community, of NATO and of the West in general. As I told the Turkish Government when I visited their country recently, we shall give them every support, and we hope that before long they will be able to return to democracy.
§ Mr. MoyleReverting to the right hon. Gentleman's earlier answer on the European initiative, may I ask whether he is seriously trying to tell the House that, in envisaging our Presidency and the development of the initiative, the Government never considered that there might be violence in the Middle East when they came to power? Has not violence been endemic in Middle East politics since 1948, and will it not continue to be endemic unless a settlement is reached? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if he has no plans now for developing the European initiative, he is scarcely likely to achieve anything by Christmas?
§ Sir Ian GilmourThe right hon. Gentleman does not achieve much by putting into my mouth words that I did not use. Of course we envisaged violence in the Middle East. As the right hon. Gentleman said, violence has been endemic there since 1948. I simply suggested that to formulate a plan without paying attention to what was happening in the area at the time would not be good politics.
§ 39. Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Lord Privy Seal whether he intends to address the European Parliament during the British Presidency.
§ Mr. HurdMy right hon. Friend has at present no plan to do so. My right hon. and noble Friend addressed the European Parliament on 8 July and outlined the programme for the United Kingdom Presidency.
§ Sir Anthony MeyerIf the Foreign Secretary addresses the European Parliament again, will he take an early opportunity to allay misgivings in Europe that the threatened British withdrawal might shake European unity by pointing out that the prospect of a Labour Government coming back to power now that the Labour Party has committed itself to withdrawal from Europe is nil? Will he tell the European Parliament that the Labour Party will 317 no more improve its chances by parading anti-Europeanism than by offering to strip Britain of its defences?
§ Mr. HurdI rather doubt whether my right hon. and noble Friend will find much time to deal with that aspect of matters. As Labour's plans become unveiled, the uncertainty and disruption that their implementation would cause is becoming clear. It is also becoming clear that they do not have a great deal to do with British interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] They have a great deal to do with the Labour Party's desire to build a collectivist State in this country.
§ Mr. James LamondIf the Foreign Secretary is to address the Common Market members again, will he bear in mind that his initiatives in Afghanistan and Kampuchea will have a much better chance of success if he tries directly to involve in the talks the Governments of those two countries?
§ Mr. HurdThe hon. Gentleman knows the two stages which the European plan suggests for Afghanistan. That seemed to us to fit the case. He also knows of the complications in respect of Kampuchea. The main task is to tackle the basic problem in both instances—namely, the withdrawal of external forces.
§ Mr. Kenneth LewisSince my hon. Friend is rightly concerned about British interests, does he not think that it is slightly inappropriate that, during our Presidency of the EEC Council of Ministers, we should be persuading the BBC to cut its broadcasts to Europe?
§ Mr. HurdI am not sure whether my hon. Friend was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) dealt admirably with that subject.
§ Mr. DeakinsIf the Foreign Secretary is tempted to waste his time addressing the European Assembly, will he please bear in mind that he is responsible to the House, and not to that body?
§ Mr. HurdMy right hon. and noble Friend made a speech at Strasbourg to which I listened. It was extremely well received as a clear and forthright statement of what was practicable during our Presidency. He did a good job that day.