asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Government of Guatemala over violations of human rights.

In the absence of official relations with Guatemala we have no means of expressing our concern directly to the Guatemalan Government. But we have repeatedly expressed disquiet during United Nations debates at reports on human rights abuses in Guatemala, and we continue to support efforts by the United Nations to bring about an improvement in the situation. On 14 December 1984 the United Kingdom voted in favour of a United Nations resolution which reiterated great concern about human rights in Guatemala.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen and considered the findings of the British parliamentary human rights group report on its visit to Guatemala, which was published in October 1984? In particular, has he seen the distressing finding in that report that

"the killings and disappearances have continued, and there has been no significant improvement in the human rights situation —if anything, it has worsened since 1983"?

Yes, I have seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred—"Bitter and cruel". We share the concern expressed in that report about the continuing human rights violations in Guatemala. It is worth pointing out that Lord Colville, the rapporteur, on whose views the United Nations recommendations and resolution were based, does, on the contrary, see some improvement in the situation in Guatemala. But we have continued regularly to express our concern to the United States, particularly about the possible consequences of any military aid to Guatemala and the effect that that would have on our garrison in Belize.

Have the Government sought to prevent arms sales to Guatemala by British companies, and, if so, with what success?

As I said in my first answer, as we have no diplomatic relations with Guatemala we cannot make any representations directly to Guatemala, but one of the things that the United Nations resolution called for, which we firmly supported, was that there should be no military aid to Guatemala.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent diplomatic attempts to solve the Cyprus problem.

We are disappointed that the outcome of the high level meeting between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus was not more positive. We have consistently supported the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General to seek a settlement of the Cyprus problem and will continue to do so. We share his view that at that time the gap between the two sides had narrowed significantly and welcome his intention to pursue his initiative. We have stressed the need to seize the opportunity he has created.

During his recent visit to Ankara, did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs make representations to General Evren and the Turkish Government that they use such good offices as they may have with Mr. Denktash to be as accommodating as possible and to try to seek a negotiated settlement in line with the United Nations' proposals?

Yes, my hon. Friend will be glad to know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary had a full discussion about Cyprus with the Turkish Government and both Governments agreed jointly that the dialogue between the parties concerned should continue and that every support should be given to the Secretary-General in his efforts.

Do the Government still hold firm to their decision not to recognise the so-called Turkish state in northern Cyprus?

Our position remains precisely the same.

I share my hon. Friend's great disappointment about the collapse of the talks in New York. Is it not unhelpful for the Turkish authorities to be calling for elections on 23 June and to be saying that concessions so far offered are to be withdrawn? Is it not important that Britain should keep in touch with the other guarantor powers to support the Secretary-General's important initiative?

We believe that nothing should be done to undermine the efforts of the Secretary-General to get a reconciliation between the parties. In January the gap had narrowed considerably and we believe that the alleged proposals by Mr. Denktash to hold elections in June will not be helpful to that process.

Is not the position of the Turkish Government central in this matter, because a programme for the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cyprus is the main issue for the Greek community? What representations did the Foreign Secretary make on that subject? It is entirely within the scope of Turkey, an ally of Britain and one of the guarantor powers, to secure a programme for the withdrawal of Turkish troops as part of an ultimate settlement.

It is the British Government's clear view that the withdrawal of foreign troops, principally the 22,000 Turkish troops, should be part of a comprehensive package. That was discussed by the Foreign Secretary when he was in Turkey.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Turkey in the light of his recent visit to that country.

My right hon. and learned Friend visited Turkey from 11 to 13 February. He met the President, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and other leading Turks, including representatives of the Opposition parties. These talks covered a wide range of issues and we are confident that the visit will have helped to develop our relations with Turkey. These relations are based on firm foundations, including our shared membership of NATO, the Council of Europe and OECD.

When my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary visited Turkey, did he have an opportunity to raise with the Government recent reports that the Greek Government are to ask the United States to remove its bases from the Mediterranean? Did my right hon. and learned Friend also discuss the possibility that Turkey might be able to fill the vacuum that could occur in those circumstances?

My right hon. and learned Friend's principal aim in his discussions with the Turkish Government was to express the hope that, in the greater interest of the strength of NATO, Greece and Turkey would reconcile their differences and have bilateral discussions to overcome their problems.

The Minister mentioned the interests of NATO, but did the Foreign Secretary have an opportunity to raise the interests of members of the executive of the Turkish Peace Association, who are languishing in a lousy, stinking jail, so described in a pamphlet that is in my possession? Did the Foreign Secretary make strong representations to the Turkish Government to the effect that our relations with them will not improve until human rights in Turkey are improved and the peace prisoners are set free?

Turkish leaders have been made aware on a number of occasions of the anxieties and views of hon. Members, the British public and the Government on human rights. However, the hon. Gentleman ought to acknowledge the progress that Turkey has been making in recent months towards the restoration of democracy and the strengthening of human rights. There is no shadow of doubt about the fact that considerable progress has been made. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that before 1980 there were an average of 20 political murders a day in Turkey. There has been a considerable improvement and we ought to encourage that process.

Does my hon. Friend agree that Britain's relations with Turkey are at a post-war high, and should we not capitalise on that fact by increasing ECGD cover and aid to Turkey, thereby helping to restore its economy? Would that not do more than any other single measure to secure a lasting return to democracy in Turkey, which is a member of NATO?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is in all our interests to encourage trade between Britain and Turkey. The ECGD restored cover for Turkey in 1983 and agreed, for example, to provide cover for the important Bosphorus bridge project. We are doing everything that we can to encourage trade.

Is it not true that only last week Amnesty International published reports showing that there is still widespread official torture in Turkey and that thousands of Turks are facing the death penalty in Turkish gaols? In that light, what conceivable justification can there be for the Foreign Secretary to offer his help in unblocking the EEC aid which is the one effective means by which Turkey has been brought closer towards democracy? How does the Foreign Secretary think that that sort of support given in Ankara to the Turkish Government will help the prisoners who are languishing in the gaols of our NATO partner?

As I have said, we are well aware of the allegations that have been made over many months about the abuse of human rights. We should acknowledge the facts in Turkey today. Martial law has been lifted in 33 of the 67 provinces and the military prison population was reduced from 43,000 in 1981 to 16,000 in 1984. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to allegations of brutality, I point out that more than 100 police officers have been convicted of ill-treatment of prisoners. It is absolutely wrong to turn our back on a country which is responding to representations from the Western world that it should improve its human rights treatment. On the contrary, we should give encouragement, and that is why we support the releasing of European Community aid to Turkey.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the reports prepared by the United Kingdom working groups on the United Nations Decade for Women.

We have made funds available for copies of the reports to be distributed to group members, relevant Government Departments, copyright libraries and the Library of the House. The groups themselves will be free to make further copies available as they see fit.

When will the Government ratify the United Nations convention on the Decade for Women? Why have the Government not done so?— [AN HON. MEMBER: "Rubbish."] Someone says, "Rubbish". I hope that that is understood by the public as a comment from the Tory party on the rights of women.

We hope to be in a position to announce our decision soon. We are still considering the convention in the light of our existing legislation. We are consulting other Departments. I do not think that the delay in ratifying is surprising in the light of the convention's wide scope.

Will my hon. Friend enlighten everyone in the United Nations and elsewhere that in this country at least we have no time whatever for this modish rubbish? In this country women are equal, and, thank heavens, most of them are different.

We have not yet taken a decision to ratify. We signed the convention in July 1981 because we share, as I am sure does my hon. Friend, its central objective of eliminating discrimination against women. We have a long tradition of concern about human rights and discrimination, wherever it occurs. We live in a world where discrimination against women is still commonplace. It is against that background that we originally signed the convention.

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of condemning as disgraceful and offensive to women in this country and throughout the world the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? The hon. Gentleman refuses to recognise that a strong body of opinion finds discrimination against women anywhere offensive, and believes that the British Government should reflect the views of the large majority of people and should, therefore, play an active part in United Nations efforts to outlaw discrimination against women throughout the world.

The hon. Gentleman is capable of conducting his own condemnation and does not need any assistance from me. I share his view that there is still far too much discrimination against women in the world. We have a long history of concern about the abuse of human rights, which was the reason for our original decision to sign the convention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Spanish relations following the opening of the border between Gibraltar and Spain.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement my right hon. and learned Friend made in the House on 6 February. We, and the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, are fully satisfied that the results of the opening of the border and the meeting in Geneva with the Spanish Foreign Minister are good for Gibraltar. They open the way to even closer relations between the United Kingdom and Spain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the arrangements made between my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and Senor Moran have greatly improved the prospects for the future of Gibraltarians? Does he agree that they encourage and maintain the base, preserve the heritage and, more important, bring about a tremendous increase in the tourist boom?

Yes, Sir. I support what my hon. Friend said. I understand that there is to be a conference next week entitled "Save Gibraltar's Heritage", which will be opened by an address from the Duke of Gloucester. The tourist industry in Gibraltar is doing extremely well. There have been 108 coaches there since the frontier was opened, and all the 210 pubs on the rock are said to be doing a thriving business.

In view of the increase in the number of tourists to Gibraltar and Spain, will the Minister have a word with the Spanish authorities about improving safety at Spanish airports? There is worry about some airports, especially about landing arrangements. It is about time that special steps were taken and representations made, because large numbers of British people go there.

I take the right hon. Gentleman's point. I was in Spain 10 days ago discussing with, the Interior Minister the safety arrangements in the tourist resorts and so on for the 6 million British tourists who go to Spain on holiday. I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point about the safety of landing arrangements at Spanish airports.

May we now give up discussion of sovereignty in any future talks, and get on with practical co-operation, on which an excellent start has been made?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear in his statement to the House what was said about sovereignty, namely, that Senor Moran outlined the Spanish position, and informally suggested some proposals about possible ways in which Spain would wish to try to recover the sovereignty of Gibraltar, and that those proposals are now likely to be presented through diplomatic channels. My right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would not comment on any ideas until they were formally put forward, and also underlined our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as set out in the preamble to the 1969 constitution.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the implementation by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of the human rights provisions of the Helsinki final act during the past six months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any change in the degree of Soviet compliance with the provisions of the Helsinki agreement.

During the past six months, in spite of welcome progress on a small number of bilateral personal cases, Soviet compliance with the majority of its Helsinki commitments has remained completely unsatisfactory.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but it is disappointing. In view of the Soviet Union's failure to honour its human rights obligations, will the Minister make further representations to the Soviet Foreign Minister? Will he approach Mr. Gromyko and ask him to use the occasion of the 40th anniversary of VE day to declare an amnesty for all Soviet war veterans, such as Colonel Lev Ousischer, who have been detained for many years against their will, and to allow them to visit their families and friends abroad? It is because they have expressed a desire to do that that they are locked away.

The problem of human rights was raised during the visit of Mr. Gorbachev to the United Kingdom in December. I note the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and the celebrations of the 40th anniversary, which are intended to be an occasion of reconciliation, would provide an adequate and desirable opportunity for acts of the kind recommended by him.

Since a right to believe in God and to practise one's religion is a right which we take for granted in this country but which, in practice, is still considered to be an offence against the state in the Soviet Union, should we not put that country in the dock for its utter failure to live up to the aspirations of the Helsinki and Madrid agreements?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. The ironic fact is that the Soviet constitution purports to grant freedom of religious observance to Soviet citizens. We are unfortunately aware that that does not happen in practice. It is important to remind the Soviet Union of that. For that reason we included cases of religious persecution in the representations made to Mr. Gorbachev and on other occasions.

Will the Minister acknowledge the visit that was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Mason) to the Soviet Union recently to study the plight of Soviet Jewry? There are a number of people in prison whose only sin is to want to go to Israel. Will the Minister take those matters into consideration and increase the pressure on the Soviet authorities to reverse the trend which is increasing the number of those in prison, increasing the harassment, and deterring many people from making representations to them?

We are delighted when parliamentarians make representations similar to those made by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman correctly draws attention to the dramatic fall in the number of Soviet Jews permitted to leave the Soviet Union. Last year the figure was some 900, compared to 51,000 several years earlier. There is no doubt that that is because of the refusal of the Soviet authorities to process applications from those who would like to leave.

Would it not be a cause for great rejoicing if the Soviet Union were to make half as much progress in the field of human and democratic rights as Turkey has in the past few years?

My right hon. Friend is justified in making that comment. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State emphasised, human rights in Turkey have improved progressively over the past few years. It is unfortunate that we cannot say the same about the Soviet Union.

Does the Minister realise that when there was a question about Guatemala not one of his Back Benchers stood up to speak, despite the terror in that country? Is the Minister also aware that the Soviet Union would receive a more sympathetic hearing in this country if it pursued different policies towards people who want to practise their religion or leave the Soviet Union? The sooner the Soviet Union modifies its policy the better.

With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, if he wishes to be consistent, I should expect him to be advocating the same sort of policy of dialogue and contact with Turkey or Guatemala as he seems keen to have with the Soviet Union.

Is my hon. Friend aware that at the visit referred to by the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) five Members of the House were allowed to visit 37 refuseniks? They told us in Moscow that they were grateful to the Government for continuing to make the point with the Soviet authorities that if the Soviets want us to trust their undertakings on peace they must first honour their international undertakings to respect fundamental human rights.

We have noted that whenever representations are made to the Soviet authorities they take careful note of the points that are made and of the individuals who are mentioned. We can only hope that they are the basis for the action that is taken by the Soviet authorities. There has been some modest progress with regard to certain personal cases which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised. We hope that that will be the beginning of more substantial improvements. There is as yet no hard evidence to support any degree of optimism.

May I emphasise to the Minister that Opposition Members who campaign for human rights do it even-handedly in East and West. Discussions on the middle east are taking place in Stockholm and between the Soviet Union and the United States in Vienna this week. Is this not an opportunity whereby the British Government might pursue the idea of greater flexibility on the Soviet Union's part in allowing some of its Jewish citizens to go to Israel, in contrast to the record of that country over the last few years?

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that no country should feel obliged to forbid its citizens to leave its territory. If it does so forbid its citizens, that is a mark of a substantial lack of self-confidence in the merits of the country concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to hold discussions with European Economic Community partners on arms supplies to the middle east.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to do so. It is for each member Government of the Community to decide on their own policy on arms supplies to other countries.

Does the Minister accept that there are double standards on the part of certain European countries, as well as on the part of the United States, which are self-defeating? Does not the arms race in respect of the middle east worry him, and is not the imbalance, which has been deliberately created by the United States, causing difficulties for moderate Arab countries, which have been driven into the hands of the Soviet Union despite the fact that the United States says that that is not its intention?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman in the sense that everything must be done to strengthen the prospects of peace and stability in the middle east, and particularly at this time in respect of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the Lebanon. All efforts must be seen in that light and the sale of arms—the subject that the hon. Gentleman has raised —must be judged against the background of whether it is likely to exacerbate the possibility of conflict. We have criteria in that connection.

If the Government agreed with the EEC arms embargo against Israel as a result of the Lebanon war will my hon. Friend confirm that when the Israelis withdraw finally from Lebanon there will be no possible basis for continuing such an arms embargo?

I should tell my hon. Friend that it was, of course, a British Government decision in the summer of 1982 to impose an arms embargo on Israel arising from its invasion of the Lebanon. Following a European Council meeting at the end of June that year the Belgian Prime Minister, who was President, stated that no member of the Community was supplying arms to Israel. We are watching with great interest—indeed, we welcome—the withdrawal of Israel from the Lebanon. The question of arms sales can be reviewed as withdrawal is completed.

Is not the Minister concerned about the continued supply of sophisticated arms to Israel by the United States, particularly when those weapons have so often been used not for self-defence but for offensive strikes against neighbouring states?

As I said earlier, our criterion is to judge each case on its merits and on whether the sale of arms is likely to exacerbate the possibility of conflict in that part of the world. However, each country obviously has a right to self-defence.

Is it not high time that the European Community had a co-ordinated policy towards selling arms to the middle east? If the United States is unable to meet the shopping list recently supplied by Saudi Arabia, is that not a jolly good opening for the British arms industry and the prospects for employment in this country?

It is certainly the case that we have good relations with many Arab countries as well as with Israel. We hope that it will be possible to sell certain equipment to them. As to the European Community, there is no provision under the treaty for common policies on arms sales. Nevertheless, we exchange views with it on arms sales policy from time to time.

Is it not a fact that the arms with which Christians and Muslims in Lebanon are killing each other on a large scale all come from Europe, including the Soviet Union and Great Britain?

I cannot put my finger on the source of every firearm that is being used in the Lebanon. All I can say is that it is very much in the British Government's interest to see the sovereignty of the Lebanese Government displayed throughout the Lebanon. That means that we want to see all foreign troops withdraw from the Lebanon to give that country a chance to survive on its own.

Will my hon. Friend examine the possibility of concerting European policy in this matter within the Council of the Western European Union? Will he further, as a priority, make sure that the needs of Kuwait and Jordan, which are in a particularly vulnerable position, are met from European sources?

I shall give thought to my hon Friend's suggestion about the WEU. As I said, within the European Community we exchange views from time to time on the question of arms sales.

Does the Minister agree that nothing would do more to improve the prospects for peace and prosperity throughout the middle east than a sharp reduction in the expenditure of all those countries on foreign arms? This matter concerns not only the European Community but countries in the Communist bloc and, above all, the United States. What representations has the Minister made to the American Government to ensure that this matter is discussed in the current talks on the middle east between the United States and the Soviet Union?

During the course of today and tomorrow my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be having discussions with the American President and Mr. Shultz, and the middle east will be a major topic of conversation. In the view of the British Government—and, I believe, of the United States—the highest prioirty must be given to working for an end to the Arab-Israeli dispute and the Iran-Iraq war, on both of which we follow policies which give priority to achieving an end to the conflicts rather than to exacerbating them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has concerning torture and other abuses of human rights in Iran.

We continue to be concerned at the large number of reports of violations of human rights in Iran. We take every suitable opportunity to urge the Iranian authorities to meet their obligations under the United Nations convention on human rights. Our continuing concern was expressed by the European Community Presidency at the United Nations in November 1984 and I set out our position very clearly in an Adjournment debate on this subject on 21 December 1984.

Is the Minister aware that a list has recently been announced by Mr. Rajavi, the chairman of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which documents over 10,000 executions in that country, including 18 women who were pregnant at the time of execution and 430 children under 18? Is he aware that there are, in addition, allegations of torture on a wide scale and imprisonment without charge and trial? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied, in the light of this unprecedented wave of barbarism, that the British Government are doing all that they can, in conjunction with other countries, to mobilise international opinion against what is happening in that country?

Yes, Sir. The British Government are deeply concerned by reports of the abuse of human rights in Iran which have been drawn to our attention, not just in respect of the Baha'i community but in respect of other parts of the Iranian community. With that in mind, we cosponsored last year a resolution of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights about the abuse of human rights in Iran. We propose to do precisely the same now, with the resumption of the United Nations commission's work in Geneva. We use whatever means we can—through the European Community, the United Nations and in other ways — to draw the attention of the Iranian authorities to the grave concern that is felt about the abuse of human rights.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the allegations of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) about torture and misery in Iran are remarkably similar to the complaints that were made against the Shah's regime, when the revolution was heralded as the answer to all the troubles? Is this not another example in the course of history of the fact that revolutions nearly always seem to bring greater misery to the people whom they are meant to save?

Bring back Louis XVI.

I agree with my hon. Friend, and that is why we are focusing as much attention as we possibly can, within the United Nations and the Community, on drawing the attention of the Iranian authorities to our anxieties about the abuse of human rights.

The Minister sounds very reasonable, but why do the Government continue not only to approve of, but to encourage, the vast increase in trade between Britain and Iran that has taken place since Khomeini took over power? There is no doubt that that trade has helped him to maintain his barbaric and cruel regime so that, in the end, we have some responsibility for what happens to the Baha'i.

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. If he makes the assumption that if we impose trade sanctions on countries which abuse human rights that will improve the situation in those countries, he should think again. It is in our interest to have a good trading relationship with Iran to maintain contact between our country and the Iranians, but at the same time to draw to their attention our grave anxieties about the abuse of human rights.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the use of majority voting in the European Council.

The European Council's task is to provide strategic direction and general political impetus to the Community. Majority voting would not be appropriate for this purpose. The European Council therefore proceeds by consensus.

Does not the system of qualified voting on the budgetary provision end any effective United Kingdom say in the amount of money spent on agriculture, and will this not be even more so when Spain and Portugal join the Community?

The hon. Gentleman's supplementary question refers not to the European Community but to the Council of Ministers, where different procedures apply. It has been the case for some time that a qualified majority applies in budgetary matters, but the hon. Gentleman should also bear in mind that new arrangements have been reached on agricultural guidelines that will control agriculture expenditure.

In view of the persistent frustration of an emerging consensus on policies of direct advantage to the United Kingdom through the abuse of the veto by countries such as Greece, is not the balance of the argument now shifting in favour of going back to the original concept of the treaty and accepting majority voting in those cases where it is specifically provided for?

There are many circumstances in which the Presidency can request a vote, and it would then be up to the country concerned to decide whether it wished to apply the veto. Recently it has been the practice for voting to take place rarely, but there is nothing either in the treaty or in what is called the Luxembourg compromise that prevents further voting if the Presidency of the day so chooses.

Does the Minister recognise that at many of the previous European Council meetings matters of detail and not of broad strategy have been discussed by the Heads of Government? When that is so, would it not be appropriate to move towards a majority voting system?

The hon. Gentleman is correct in that it has been one of the causes of concern that European Councils have often had to deal with matters of detail. When the European Council is dealing not with matters of strategy but with points of detail, it takes on the form of a Council of Ministers and can take decisions in the normal way.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects the accession of Spain and Portugal to take place.

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) on 23 January, we are working for completion of the negotiations as soon as possible so that Spain and Portugal may accede on 1 January 1986.

If the accession of Spain and Portugal is one of the exceptional events that allow a change in the terms of budgetary discipline, will the Minister give an undertaking that the accession of these two countries will not mean increasing the 75 per cent. of the budget that is already spent on agricultural affairs?

The need for budgetary discipline is separate from the question of enlargement, although I freely concede that if there were no budgetary discipline, enlargement would create additional problems. It is the common desire of the House and of the member states that the proportion of total expenditure should be reduced and should continue to decrease, and the formula agreed so far on agricultural exenditure means that agriculture will progressively represent a lower and lower share of total Community expenditure.

What account has my hon. Friend taken of the employment implications for the United Kingdom of the accession of Portugal and Spain to the Common Market? Is he aware that, in particular, the textile, clothing, paper and board industries will suffer enormously? What account has he taken of this factor, bearing in mind that, for the United Kingdom, there is no economic benefit from the accession, and that the European Economic Community is now a political community and nothing to do with economics?

It is certainly the case that there is concern in various quarters about the implications of enlargement. It is for this reason that tough and lengthy transitional arrangements are being insisted upon. I cannot agree with my hon. Friend that there are no economic advantages to the United Kingdom. For example, the arrangement that has been reached on industrial tariffs and controls on imports of motor vehicles to Spain means that the present duty will be reduced by over half in the first three years after Spain's accession. That should give opportunities to the United Kingdom in that important area.

As a tax increase to 1·4 per cent. was envisaged to cope with the Iberia enlargement, if that enlargement is delayed will the Minister guarantee that no such increase will be made? After all the talk of financial discipline, as agricultural spending is already punching big holes in the EC budget, will he assure the House that he will not be coming back for even more money for EC agriculture?

The proposed increase in own resources is caused by several factors, of which enlargement is only one. The Federal German Government have indicated that they could not support the introduction of any increase in own resources until after the ratification of the accession treaty has been completed. In regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, we have already said that it may indeed be necessary in the current year to provide for further supplementary finance if the own resources provision is not brought forward.

Does my hon. Friend not regret that it has been left to the Greek Government to take a robust and sensible attitude to the accession negotiations? Does he agree that it is always more important to get the right answer, however long it takes, than to attempt to rush Spain and Portugal into the Community on the wrong terms?

My hon. Friend is correct. He will reflect that Spain's application for membership of the Community was made seven years ago, so I do not think anyone can be accused of rushing the negotiations. In regard to his comment on Greece, Greece is simply concerned about integrated Mediterranean programmes. It is openly and blatantly using its objectives in that respect as a bargaining point to try to achieve what it believes to be appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that the Labour party supports the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC? Given the shambles at the Foreign Affairs Council yesterday, where does this leave the practicalities of accession on 1 January next year and the consequent EC funding crisis? Is there not genuinely a monumental crisis that cannot he shoved under the carpet any longer? West Germany will exercise a veto on any increase in own resources unless accession takes place before an impossible date; the British rebate is almost certainly doomed and the Community is running out of cash. How precisely will the Council of Ministers resolve the EC financial nightmare?

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are in favour of Spain joining the community. I would be pleased to hear an equally unequivocal statement that they are in favour of Britain not leaving the Community. That itself would represent considerable progress. The hon. Gentleman correctly referred to the difficulties and problems that the Community faces. There is no belief within the Community that these problems cannot be resolved. Various proposals are on the table and it is reasonable to assume that over the next few weeks major progress will be made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the ad hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs concerning an external identity for the European Economic Community.

In its interim report, which is available in the Library of the House, the committee has identified a number of useful ideas to enable the Ten to strengthen their foreign policy co-operation and make it more effective, complementing the Community's existing trade and development policies.

Can the Minister inform the House whether, when the Prime Minister has discussions with the President of the United States, she will urge him to abandon his policy of destruction and destabilisation in Central America? [Interruption.] Will she bear in mind the Dublin declaration, which clearly said that the only solution to the Central American problem—

Order. I am not sure that that question has much to do with the EC.

It has.

Has it? All right.

It is the bully boys over yonder who are causing the trouble. Will the Prime Minister bear in mind the Dublin declaration, which was associated with the EC, and which stated that the solution to the Central American problem lay not in the use of armed force but in political efforts?

As I am the British member of the ad hoc Committee on Institutional Affairs, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this is not a subject that we have discussed so far. It may be appropriate for our next meeting, and I shall bear the hon. Gentleman's interests in mind. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind any statement made by the Heads of Government at meetings that she attends.

Is my hon. Friend aware that most people are far less concerned with the development of an external identity with the Community than with the removal of the many obstacles to the free movement of trade and services within the Community and with the ending of such absurdities as the directive that requires businesses with a turnover of only £18,000 to register for VAT?

One of the unanimous recommendations of the interim report of the committee to which the question refers is a strong desire for early and maximum progress on the completion of the internal market. This is one of the most important priorities for the British Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the most recent estimate of the date by which European Community expenditure could not be met by the present rate of Community receipts, without recourse to an increase in the own resources value added tax rate or supplementary finance.

Uncertainties surrounding the rate of Community expenditure do not permit a precise estimate of the date by which additional resources will be required. In forwarding the draft 1985 budget to the European Parliament, the Council undertook to meet additional budgetary requirements by 1 October 1985.

If and when the Government come back to the House for authority to increase the net contribution to the Community above the £900 million provided for next year, will he assure us that, first, the Government will consider the relative merits of that increased finance against other means and, secondly, that the House will have an early opportunity to debate the wisdom of that supplementary finance?

I have no doubt that, if it is necessary to ask the House to approve supplementary finance for this year, the House will have the same very full opportunity as it had recently to express its views. It has been made clear to the other member states that the approval of the House of Commons is required before any additional expenditure can be agreed.

Why has the Community not budgeted to spend within its anticipated income?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a conflict of responsibilities within the Community because of the way in which the treaty is drafted. There is a limit on the resources available to it this year, and that is a legal responsibility that it has to accept. There are also certain legal responsibilities to meet the entitlement of private citizens and others who benefit from Community expenditure. It has not been possible to reconcile these two requirements.

Will my hon. Friend accept that most right hon. and hon. Members think that there is nothing uncertain about Common Market expenditure and that it will continue to be out of control? May I remind my hon. Friend that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury promised us, almost on the Holy Grail, that we should not be asked for more money? Yet even today we are told that the House will be asked to give more money to the EEC. When shall we get this monstrous organisation under control?

I read the minutes of the evidence that the Economic Secretary gave to the Committee of which my hon. Friend is a member. I can assure him that the Economic Secretary gave no such assurance. He has gone out of his way, at the Dispatch Box and elsewhere, to say that it may be necessary to have supplementary expenditure this year. Her Majesty's Government have striven more than most to control Community expenditure.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Foreign Affairs Council has considered a further supplementary loan as a way of financing European Economic Community expenditure in the coming year.

Council discussions are at present continuing about the best way of financing Community expenditure in 1985.

I should like to remind the Minister of the precise words of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 22 January:

"I should like to think that supplementary budgets for the European Community would not be a thing of the future"—[Official Report, 22 January 1984; Vol. 71, c. 884.]

This is the final year before the new budgetary discipline proposals come into effect. It is for that reason that expenditure that may be incurred by the Community this year has not had the benefit of the control and discipline agreed upon last year at Fontainebleau. Only when the budgetary discipline proposals have come into effect, beginning with the price-fixing discussions on agricultural prices within the next few months, will we be able to judge their effectiveness.

Is it my hon. Friend's estimate that the supplementary finance that will be required for 1985 is likely to be even greater than the £120 million required for 1984?

The Commission has come forward with certain figures—

Answer the question.

The Commission has come forward with certain figures which, at the moment, it maintains represent sums that will be due. We have not yet had an opportunity to consider them in detail. If the figures are correct, they represent a larger amount than for the previous year. However, the Government intend to scrutinise very carefully—as they did last year— any proposals by the Commission, in order to see whether the figures are unnecessarily high.

The result of all this Government voyeurism—these careful scrutinies—is always to give in to the Community. Does the Minister agree that, as a matter of fact and practice, there is no chance whatever of the Commmunity avoiding bankruptcy this year unless Her Majesty's Government pay over a large part of the rebate owed to us since Fontainebleau?

If the right hon. Gentleman had done his homework he would have appreciated that on the last occasion when voyeurism—as he so politely describes it —took place, the Commission's proposals were reduced by more than half through the efforts of my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary.

The Government have not yet received the money.

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The rebate for the year to which I have just referred was paid and the House was not asked to approve any further proposals until that sum was paid.

What about this year?

At the discussions that have just taken place in the Foreign Affairs Council there was unanimous agreement that that sum has to be paid, in accordance with the provisions of the Fontainebleau summit. Her Majesty's Government are confident that that obligation will be properly satisfied.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what benefits have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of the Fontainebleau agreement.

The following have accrued to the United Kingdom as a result of the Fontainebleau agreement: payment of our 1983 refund of £430 million; an abatement of £625 million for 1984; a lasting mechanism for the future which will require the United Kingdom to contribute only half what it would otherwise have had to pay to the Community budget; and an agreement on the control of Community spending, including agricultural spending.

The Minister's reply is amazingly complacent, as his replies have been all afternoon. The Fontainebleau agreement was supposed to have ended the haggling, but, as the agriculture budget for 1985–86 is to increase by 6 per cent., the haggling will continue. How can the Minister claim that there is any such thing as budgetary discipline in the EEC?

My answer was not complacent. I gave a factual answer to a factual question. As a result of Fontainebleau, over £1,000 million has already been paid to the United Kingdom, quite apart from the additional advantages to which I have just referred. That was what the hon. Lady asked, and that was the answer that I gave. For the first time in its history the EEC has agreed to a tight procedure for the control of expenditure. As I mentioned earlier, the agricultural price proposals of the Commission have to be framed within that procedure, and we believe that this marks a new opportunity for the Community properly to control its expenditure.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Fontainebleau agreement would have been even more effective if it had included certain quid pro quos, notably a freer market on matters affecting EEC trade, such as freer access by the British insurance industry to the German insurance market, which has so far been denied us?

That is indeed a great priority of the United Kingdom and something which the President of the Commission has said will be one of his priorities during his term of office. The Fontainebleau agreement was concerned with ending once and for all the budgetary imbalance problem that the United Kingdom faced. By an overwhelming majority, the House has welcomed that agreement.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that, through no fault of yours or of right hon. and hon. Members who are deeply concerned about the many vital issues that are raised during Foreign Office questions, once again the House has managed to cover only a tiny handful of the questions on the Order Paper before going on to European Community questions at 3.10 pm. Are you further aware that approaches were made some weeks ago through the usual channels to abolish the distinction between Foreign Office and Community questions or, at a minimum, to extend the time available for Foreign Office questions by five minutes, at the expense of Community questions? Can you use your good offices to ensure that there is rapid progress on this matter?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I do not agree precisely with the proposal of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), there is widespread support for his general worry about the division between the 78 questions for the rest of the world and the 17 questions concerning EEC matters. The House has already agreed that questions relating to Overseas Development should be taken on a separate day. There might be a precedent there and I ask you seriously to consider this matter, as it worries many hon. Members.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This matter has been raised on other occasions and you stated at the time that it should be pursued through the usual channels, but so far, as you know, there has been no solution. Is it not worrying that, for example, yesterday, those of us who joined a picket outside South Africa House—

Order. I do not think that this is anything to do with me.

I realise that what is happening in South Africa is of no interest to Tories, but those of us who are interested made it clear yesterday that, as the House was to have Foreign Office questions today, we would have an opportunity to try to catch your eye. In the event, it was not possible to raise the issue of the police action and repression that is taking place in South Africa on the few questions that were reached.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will ignore the request of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Perhaps we need a special session of Common Market questions, but the idea that the needs of Guatemala and Nicaragua and all of those other places are more important than the nonsense that goes on in the Common Market is ridiculous. It is not that we have too many questions on the Common Market but that we have too few. I hope that you will see that we get more, not fewer.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I recognise the division in the ranks of the Labour and of the Conservative parties on the Common Market, do you agree that, if this matter is suitable for decision through the usual channels, the participation of the alliance parties is extremely important and should be acknowledged?

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have noticed that, during the past 12 months or more, ever since the Common Market ran into extreme financial difficulties, almost every hon. Member, including most of those who were eager to get into the Common Market, now make continuous and long complaints—

Order. This is nothing to do with me.

I have not quite finished. I shall only be a minute.

Order. That is nothing to do with me.

That point has nothing to do with it. I am just asking, Mr. Speaker, whether you had noticed, as I have, that no hon. Member, apart from those at the Dispatch Box, stands up to back the Common Market, which is one of the biggest uneconomic units in the world, whose reserves—

Order. This does not concern me.

I will get to it.

I do not know whether the hon. Member will get to it. We have a very long day ahead of us and I am taking points of order. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to say that this has absolutely nothing to do with me. I am taking points of order because I thought that it would be interesting for the Leader of the House to hear about this matter. There is nothing more for me to add.

My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is— Mr. Speaker: Order. All right, come on.

I was just getting to it. It was a long preamble, but it was not so long as the Minister's earlier answer. My point of order is that because hardly any hon. Member will stand up and support the Common Market, it would be a good idea if this country got out of it. Twenty minutes would then be saved and that time could be spent on Foreign Office questions.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While not wishing to challenge your ruling, which I respect, I should have thought that it was appropriate, on the day that the Prime Minister is meeting President Reagan to discuss star wars, for a statement to be made on the Floor of the House—

Order. The hon. Lady and I have had some correspondence about this matter. She must not pursue it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should be grateful for your assistance upon a very important matter for the whole House. As you know when we joined the European Community we did so on the basis that 1 per cent. of the nation's VAT resources should be applied in that direction—

Order. This has nothing to do with me. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order to which I can respond.

It relates to the nature of the debate and discussion of the parliamentary measure which should be introduced to deal with such matters. As you know, Mr. Speaker, not long ago the House had to vote on the extended loan to the Community of £120 million of taxpayers' money. From the answer of my right hon. Friend this afternoon, the Chancellor—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is trying to do something which I thought we had stopped doing—that is, prolonging Question Time. I think that we should now proceed to the ballot for notices of motions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the difficulties you have in this unruly place. May I ask you to have regard, when calling hon. Members, to those hon. Members who have put down questions on foreign affairs? I understand your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, but today several Members who have not shown sufficient interest to put down questions have been called while those hon. Members who have put down questions have been ignored.

The hon. Member has frequently heard me say that I try not to do that.