To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in the Falkland Islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on negotiations over the Falkland Islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he expects to meet Secretary Haig to discuss the Falkland Islands.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Falkland Islands situation.

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the progress in negotiations with the Argentines over the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Canavan.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman to await my statement at 3.30 pm? That also applies to questions 8, 9, 10 and 19.

Will those hon. Members whose questions are to be answered await the statement of the Foreign Secretary?

Certainly, to help the House, Mr. Speaker.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list those persons and organisations with whom Lord Carrington held discussions in Jerusalem during his recent visit to the Middle East.

During his visit to Israel from 30 March to 1 April my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington met the President, Prime Minister, Defence Minister, the Speaker and other Members of the Israeli Knesset. Lord Carrington also visited the Weizmann institute of science.

Is it not significant that the then Foreign Secretary was prevented by the Israeli authorities from meeting Mayor Shakaa of Nablus and Mayor Khalaf of Ramallah? If the noble Lord had met them, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he would have found two very civilised representatives of West Bank thinking, not Palestinian terrorism as they are being presented in the Western press? Will he protest to the Israeli Government about the treatment of those two mayors and about the lack of civil rights in the West Bank under Israeli jurisdiction?

The hon. Gentleman is not quite right. The idea was that the Deputy Under-Secretary of State who was with Lord Carrington, Sir John Leahy, should meet a number of West Bank personalities. He could not meet all those whom he wished to meet, but he had useful conversations with two of them.

Quite rightly, the attention of the House is concentrated on the Falkland Islands. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of self-determination, which we all uphold, is just as valid when applied to the Palestinians and that there will be a grave danger of war, and certainly no chance of lasting peace, unless that principle is recognised?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the dangers in the Middle East and about self-determination.

Will the Minister convey to Mr. Begin that a Bantu-style arrangement, under which 1¼ million Palestinian Arabs are third-class citizens, is no more acceptable in the Middle East than it is in South Africa?

My noble Friend Lord Carrington went over that ground thoroughly with Mr. Begin. I do not think that there is any doubt about our position.

Is not the self-determination that we are talking about the self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs, not the self-determination of the Palestinians taking their orders from the PLO in Beirut?

We are talking about the right of the people in the occupied territories to determine their own future—a right which so far has not been granted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will review the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards those Governments which are dictatorships, following the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina.

The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards all foreign Governments is kept under constant review.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it is high time that Britain and the West in general developed foreign policies that demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that we support democracies and oppose authoritarian dictatorships?

At the present time we are showing good evidence of doing just that.

In reviewing the Government's policies towards countries which are under dictatorial rule, will the Government address themselves to the problem of the Eritrean people who are fighting against the armed might of the Ethiopian regime, which is backed by the Soviet Union? Will the Government also give assistance to the friendly Government of Somalia next door?

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said about those two countries.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his conversion against the dictatorship in the Argentine was a bit late? Does he further accept that when the present troubles are over it might be better if the Foreign Office were to review our relationships—particularly in regard to selling arms—with dictatorships around the world, especially those in Latin America, as the issue has now obviously changed?

There are degrees in everything, and it is difficult sometimes to draw a precise dividing line, but I think the House knows to what the hon. Gentleman is referring. I certainly do. Obviously, there may be a review of our relationships with some countries when the present particularly unfortunate incident is over. I shall keep in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

When my right hon. Friend carries out that review, will he make it clear to all who read any report that emanates from it that Conservative and Labour Governments have sold arms to the Argentine? Will he also make it clear that members of the previous Labour Government were responsible for selling two type 42 frigates and a number of Canberras to the Argentine Republic and that many of them—particularly the right hon. Members for Brisol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart)—were involved in the decision when it was taken?

It is fair to say that Conservative and Labour Governments have always kept their policies on the sale of arms under constant review. All applications for the sale of arms are considered on their merits. That policy applied to the previous Labour Government, as it does to the present Government. Sometimes things work out helpfully and at other times they work out otherwise. The subject is constantly under review. Undoubtedly, many countries have supplied arms to the Argentine in the last 10 or 20 years.

Is it not a fact that the Chilean junta is as bloodstained as the Argentinian junta? Why do the Government continue to enjoy friendly relations with the Chilean Government, especially as that Government have not offered a word of apology to the British Government for their assaults upon the freedom of British citizens in Chile?

Our policy is to have normal relations with Chile and other countries, consistent with British interests. In so doing we have left the Chilean Government in no doubt that their record on human rights has given rise to a great deal of concern here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding the level of United Kingdom diplomatic representation in Latin America.

None, Sir.

Should we not learn from recent events that it is important to keep in touch with the views of the people and Governments of the countries in this vast continent? Will the Government reconsider their decision not to have ambassadorial representation in Nicaragua?

We have no plans to change the present arrangement whereby Her Majesty's ambassador in San Jose is accredited to Managua. The ambassador and his staff have made several visits to Nicaragua this year.

Does my hon. Friend agree that British representation in Latin American countries in the past has been largely through our trading links and that we have a good record of trading, other than arms trading?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to pay a tribute—which I hope the whole House will endorse—to the staff of our missions throughout Latin America for the way in which they are carrying out their task in the current difficult circumstances.

I accept and endorse what the Minister has just said about our diplomatic staff. Does he agree that there have been dramatically changed circumstances in Latin America, for obvious reasons, since the Government declared their policy with regard to ambassadorial status in Nicaragua in particular? Does he further agree that it is important, in view of those changing circumstances, to have somebody on the spot all the time?

I know that some members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs have expressed concern about the subject. If the Committee has specific recommendations to put to me when it completes its report on the visit to the area, I shall be willing to consider them.

I understand my hon. Friend's reservations about this particular embassy, but will he bear in mind that the annual cost of the embassy in San Jose is rather less than one torpedo?

I am sure that all relevant factors will be borne in mind.

Irrespective of the formal position concerning accreditation, does the Minister agree that it might be possible to have a permanent British presence in some of the smaller capitals at relatively low cost and so get the advantage of a listening post, which occasional visits cannot give?

If it should seem to be of advantage to set up the kind of mini-mission that the hon. Gentleman suggests, we shall give favourable consideration to the idea.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support any meeting between President Reagan and President Brezhnev with a view to assisting nuclear disarmament.

Yes, Sir. We support any direct contact between the Heads of the Governments of the two major nuclear Powers which seems likely to promote agreement on balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear arms levels.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the current situation demonstrates just how precarious world peace is? Therefore, does he recognise that now is the time for him to exert leadership in Europe by mobilising opinion among our friends on the Continent behind the early commencement of the strategic arms reduction talks, a possible October meeting between President Brezhnev and President Reagan, and to go all out to ensure the success of those talks in the way that he is now suggesting?

Yes, we are strongly in support of those talks. They will have our full support, but they are primarily for the two super Powers. The instability in the world at the moment and the issue that is occupying so much time in the House demonstrate the need for deterrence, which means an adequate capability to deter anyone from going to war in the first place. That is a very important element. That is why in arms control it is important that reductions, which everybody wants, should be balanced and verifiable.

Does my right hon. Friend know whether it is the intention of Presidents Reagan and Brezhnev to attend the United Nations second special session on disarmament in June? Does he agree that that is the appropriate forum in which the two Presidents can put forward constructive proposals for balanced multilateral disarmament? Does my right hon. Friend also welcome the fact that our Prime Minister will be attending those talks?

I understand that the President of the United States has indicated his readiness to go. We do not yet know about President Brezhnev. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has indicated her intention to be present. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's question.

Is the Secretary of State aware of the strength of support on the Labour Benches for the sort of summit meeting that is being talked about here? May we hope that Her Majesty's Government, during the important preparatory sessions for such a summit meeting, will use their influence to make sure that major initiatives are taken to reduce the present level of armaments in the world?

Yes, we shall certainly take all those important points fully into account. At the same time, we must appreciate that the build-up of arms on the other side of the Iron Curtain still continues, and we have to be sure all the time that we have the capability and the equipment with which to negotiate. If we were not adequately protected, and if our deterrence were not adequate, there would be little incentive for those on the other side of the Iron Curtain to negotiate with us. We have very much in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Afghanistan.

Her Majesty's Government do not regard the Karmal regime as a Government and therefore do not deal with it as a Government.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is difficult to have normal relations with Afghanistan when the authorities insist on detaining, without any proper charge, Mr. Pinder-Wilson, who is an archaeological academic with a very genuine interest in Afghanistan? Will my right hon. Friend tell us what Her Majesty's Government are doing to obtain his release and will he inform us of his condition?

It is true that the security authorities have detained Mr. Pinder-Wilson since 28 March, and they have given no details of charges against him, despite repeated requests by the British consul. The consul has seen him once, but only one consular visit has been permitted. We are continuing to press for proper access by the consul and for details of any charges against Mr. Pinder-Wilson.

If it makes sense to have negotiations about the Falklands, does it not make sense also to have negotiations about Afghanistan? President Karmal has suggested that he will send the troops out of his country provided that he can get certain guarantees. Should not that offer be taken up? If we are talking about world peace, does that not matter, or does militarism cloud every mind in the House? I do not think that it does, but surely——

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked his question.

The hon. Gentleman follows these matters with some care. Therefore, he must know that last year we, together with our European partners, put forward a peace plan for Afghanistan, but it must depend upon the willingness of the Soviet Union to withdraw its Army from that country.

As Mr. Pinder-Wilson's niece lives in my constituency I have a deep interest in this matter and have communicated with my right hon. Friend about it. Is it possible to bring pressure to bear upon the Afghan authorities through the Soviet Union, which has considerable influence in that country?

We are trying every way that we can, and I shall certainly consider what my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was the outcome of the meeting held during April with officials of the Government of the Republic of Ireland concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf between the United Kingdom and the Republic.

The meeting between officials which took place in London on 16 April made further encouraging progress towards agreeing the composition and terms of reference of the arbitration tribunal. Another meeting has been scheduled for June.

As there have been at least nine such meetings since the beginning of 1980, cannot Ministers inject some urgency to produce an early and clear outcome to the talks so that, for instance, fishing vessels and submarines may know in whose territorial waters they are sailing?

The terms of reference and composition of the tribunal are complex matters, but we hope that the arbitration process will be signed during this year.

In considering the problem, will my hon. Friend draw to my right hon. Friend's attention the recorded broadcast of the Prime Minister of Eire on BBC television last night, which was massively unhelpful to Britain's position in solving the problem of aggression in the Falkland Islands and would be considered by some to be a stab in the back?

Those matters do not arise out of the question, but I am sure that my hon. Friend's views are shared by many hon. Members.

In discussing the continental shelf between Ireland and Great Britain, does the Minister feel that relations have been injured by the recent incident involving a submarine and a fishing boat? Why did the submarine not know that it was snagged in the nets of a fishing boat until the fishing boat had gone 11 miles backwards? Why did it take so long for the British Government to admit responsibility for the incident?

The incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a matter of concern. However, it is appropriate to address such questions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's current relations with Belize.

Her Majesty's Government enjoy excellent relations with Belize, which became a member of the Commonwealth on attaining independence in September 1981.

Does my hon. Friend agree that now more than ever the threat to Belize from Guatemala should be taken fully into consideration? If so, does he share my view that the policy of keeping British forces in Belize, which cost a mere £4·4 million and are wanted by the Belize authorities to protect their interests, should be pursued with vigour? Will he assure me that they will stay there for as long as is necessary?

The British garrison remains in Belize. No decision has been taken on a date for its withdrawal. We hope that in due course the new Government in Guatemala will have discussions with Belize over the dispute with a view to achieving a final and peaceful solution. However, the new Government have so far shown no disposition to do so, and there are no clear signs as to how the new junta will approach the territorial dispute with Belize.

Will the Minister give the House an assurance, which I am sure both sides wish to hear, that there will be no question—I put it precisely—of withdrawing the British forces presently protecting Belize until it is clear to all that there is no current military threat from Guatemala?

The present heightened tension in that hemisphere as a result of the Falklands crisis will be carefully considered by the Government in any decision about the presence of the garrison.

That reply is totally unsatisfactory. I ask, for the second time, a specific question, which it should not be difficult for the Government to answer. Indeed, a refusal to answer or an attempt to evade the question will have the most damaging consequences for stability in that area. Will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will not withdraw the forces presently committed to the defence of Belize until everyone is satisfied that there is no further threat from the Government of Guatemala?

I repeat that no date has been set for withdrawal. The factors mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman are obviously relevant to any decision that we may take.

Is it not highly relevant in the context of events in the Falkland Islands that, immediately after the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, Guatemala stepped up its articulate demands for gaining Belize? I ask my hon. Friend not whether he is prepared to give a date but whether, if the British troops remain in Belize, there will be no lack of universal acceptance by the House of full efforts and determination to ensure that it is not let down at the last moment.

We have no intention of letting Belize down. We are watching closely and listening carefully to what is being said by the new regime in Guatemala.

I regret to have to come back to the issue, but I have the support of many hon. Members on both sides of the House in doing so. As the Minister will know, many of us believe that the crisis in the Falkland Islands arose because the Government gave a false signal to the Argentine Government. Unless the Minister can give a specific answer to the specific question that I put to him, he is in danger of giving another false signal. I appeal to him again to do so.

rose——

And close that brief.

I have no intention of giving any false signals, even to those who wish to see them.

Does my hon. Friend accept that the only answer that the House needs is a simple "Yes"?

I am well aware of the mood of the House. I do not know why the House does not understand me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any new information on the Palestine Liberation Organisation's attitude towards Israeli sovereignty.

There have been a number of statements from PLO leaders on the subject of Israel's right to exist as an independent sovereign State, but, taken together, these statements have been neither clear nor consistent. In the contacts that we maintain with the PLO at official level, we urge it to state explicitly that in the context of a settlement it would be prepared to accept Israel's rights.

Is the Minister aware that on 12 January this year the political adviser to Yasser Arafat said that there was no hope of any deal being made with the Israelis and that the Arabs intended to consider the matter from the vantage point of there being no such arrangements for making peace with Israel? If that is true, what are the hopes for arriving at some solution to this delicate problem?

We can all swap quotations. I have a series of quotations from Mr. Arafat which tend to point the other way. It simply adds up to the conclusion that I drew, which is that, sadly, the statements of the PLO on this subject have been neither clear nor consistent.

Is it not significant that the PLO said that it will consider sympathetically any revival of the Fahd plan, which offers the first prospect of Arab agreement on an exchange of territorial concessions for the security and recognition of the State of Israel? Is there not a better prospect of a way forward being found through a revival of the Fahd plan than through a continuation of the Camp David talks?

My hon. Friend is right. The PLO has given indications of that kind. We would like the PLO to state explicitly that if Israel recognised Palestinian self-determination, it would be prepared to accept Israel's right to exist.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Palestine Liberation Organisation's diplomatic position is severely handicapped by its unwillingness to make the statement that he has just urged it to make? Is he aware that if he continually urges the PLO to make that statement, he will have the Opposition's support?

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, following his predecessor's recent visit to Israel, he will make a statement on the steps which he proposes to take to improve relations between the United Kingdom and Israel still further.

One of the results of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Carrington's visit was to strengthen relations between the United Kingdom and Israel. The forthcoming official visits of the Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Industry and Trade, will provide further opportunities for discussion. We have also proposed, and the Israeli Government have accepted, the idea of holding talks at senior official level.

Lord Carrington's visit was obviously overshadowed by the subsequent crisis in the Falkland Islands, but is my right hon. Friend aware that the visit was well received in Israel and did a great deal to improve relations? When the further problems with which we are all concerned have, I hope, receded, will my right hon. Friend give as much attention as he can to improving relations further?

My hon. Friend is right. If we are to play an effective part in helping things forward in the Middle East it is important that we should have a continuous and friendly dialogue with Israel.

Does the Minister consider it appropriate at this stage to invite representatives of the PLO and Israel to an informal meeting in London to discuss the basic issues in the Middle East? Does he further agree that that is the only way in which we shall resolve the fighting in that part of the world? If there is to be a solution, clearly the Government have the responsibility, just as they do in the Falklands, to put forward certain initiatives. Will they do that?

The hon. Gentleman suggested that we should invite Israeli and PLO representatives to a meeting in London. We could invite them, but neither would come.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.

We warmly welcome the Egypt-Israel peace and the successful completion of the Israeli withdrawal from Sinai. It is a most important step forward on the path to a comprehensive peace and we particularly admire the determination that the Israelis have shown in carrying it out.

In recognising that this is a most important step forward, does my right hon Friend agree that the time is now right for the Government to persuade the Government of the United States to have a much clearer policy on the West Bank than in the past, consistent with the right to full autonomy for the inhabitants on the West Bank?

Yes, I think that that would be helpful. I have not yet had any discussions on this with Mr. Haig or anyone in the United States Administration. I have not yet had time for a conversation with them on that subject, but I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

Does the Foreign Secretary appreciate that at the same time as Israel was withdrawing from the Sinai it was building new settlements on the West Bank? I saw for myself that the Palestinians there were very badly treated. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the only real, lasting hope of peace in the area lies in a mutual recognition by the two sides of the right of Israel to exist and for the Palestinians to be allowed to decide their own destiny?

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. We obviously deplore recent incidents of violence and bloodshed, because that can only make more difficult the creation of a climate of trust and confidence, which is an essential preliminary for a negotiated settlement. However, I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said.

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report in Le Monde dated 28 April, which reported Mr. Begin as suggesting that the West Bank could not be annexed by Israel as it is already part of Israeli territory? Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the House that that is not the view of Her Majesty's Government?

Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to repeat the question?

Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a report in Le Monde dated 28 April, which reported Mr. Begin as saying that it was impossible for Israel to annex the West Bank as the West Bank already belonged to Israel? Will my right hon. Friend make it perfectly clear that that does not represent the view of Her Majesty's Government?

I have not seen that report. It has not been brought to my attention this morning. However, I do know that the whole issue of the West Bank is obviously the central part of the dispute. I hope shortly to be able to devote a good deal more of my time to dealing with that issue. The Government's position is to do whatever we can with our European partners to help in this matter.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any improvement in our relations with Israel will be difficult while Israeli forces remain on the West Bank, in Syria and in the Lebanon?

I see nothing but difficulties in the whole of that area. What the hon. Gentleman says is true, but there are other features of the problem that are equally difficult to deal with. I think people all round the world are trying to find a way forward in this dispute. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the difficulty.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects an agreement on the independence of Namibia to be reached between the contact group and the other parties.

The Western Five hope to resolve the outstanding issues in time for implementation of the United Nations plan to begin during 1982. This would mean that a ceasefire would come into effect this year, together with the deployment of the United Nations transition assistance group and the start of the process leading to elections. Actual independence for Namibia would follow some time in 1983.

In the light of the Government's current sensitivity on the issues of aggression and self-determination, will they now show a greater sense of urgency on South African aggression against Angola, which continues day by day, and on self-determination for the people of Namibia, who have waited 16 years for that?

The whole purpose of the Government's exercise is to put an end to that state of affairs. The hon. Gentleman might like to know that we have received a memorandum indicating SWAPO's views on the proposals in phase 1. We look to the current meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the front-line States in Dar-es-Salaam for an authoritative response to our proposals. We shall then make proposals on how to take negotiations forward, once we have had time to study the authoritative responses of the parties, and do not intend to waste time in that process.

Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to meet Mr. Dirk Mudge during his current visit to London? Is he aware that those of us who have recently been to Namibia know that the people who suffer most from SWAPO are the indigenous minorities, such as the bushmen, and that those who benefit most from the South African presence, curiously enough, are precisely those ethnic minorities whose future could be at risk unless the matter is handled with great delicacy?

I hope to meet Mr. Mudge tomorrow. I look forward very much to discussing with my hon. Friend his findings during his recent visit to Namibia.

When the Minister listens to claims such as those made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), will he remember the sort of claims made by similar people about Rhodesia, and will he bear in mind that Dirk Mudge is no more than the Bishop Muzorewa of Namibia?

It is not likely to help my discussions with anyone if I make prejudgments of that kind.

Has my hon. Friend seen reports in the press that about 500 Cuban personnel have been withdrawn from Angola? Are they military or civilian personnel, or persons who in any way supported the SWAPO incursions into South-West Africa?

I have seen such reports, but I suggest that my hon. Friend should address his question to the Cuban Government rather than to me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise at the next meeting of the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers the question of stopping arms sales to Fascist-style regimes; and if he will make a statement.

Individual countries in the European Community have their own policies on the export of arms. However, the hon. Member will be aware that Community members have now banned the export of all arms to Argentina.

That does not answer the question on the Order Paper. Does the Minister agree that it is a scandal that the Common Market countries are making a killing out of what is taking place in the area of the Falkland Islands? Is it not a fact that it was almost certainly a French missile that sank HMS "Sheffield" yesterday? Is it not true that British missiles are being fired on British troops? Is it not time that the Government gave an unequivocal commitment that they will stop selling arms to Fascist-style regimes in the world and called upon our so-called Common Market partners to do the same?

I simply repeat, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question and his supplementary question, that Community members have now banned the export of all arms to Argentina.

Will my right hon. Friend deal not only with the sale of arms from Europe to Fascist-style regimes but with European policy on the sale of arms between Facist-style regimes—notably the sale of arms by Israel to the Fascist regime in Argentina? Can he assure the House that this has now stopped?

We raised this with the Israeli Government and received assurances from them that they would enter into no new contracts for the supply of arms to Argentina, nor would they speed up delivery under existing contracts.

As we now have the sad experience of coming under fire from weapons and vessels that we have supplied, will the Government give a guarantee to cease the supply of arms to all South American countries, and in particular will they reconsider the sale of Harrier jets to Venezuela?

As my right hon. Friend said a few minutes ago, we look carefully at all applications for the supply of arms, and in particular refuse requests where we think that the equipment in question could be used to suppress human rights in the country concerned.

While I agree that there should be a tightening of controls, if not a ban, on the export of arms to authoritarian regimes, particularly those that threaten their neighbours, will my right hon. Friend give the House the assurance that it requires and say that if a small democracy such as Belize is threatened by such a country, we shall stand by it?

I think that my hon. Friend will have heard the comprehensive answers that have already been given.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report further progess on the preparations for the United Nations special session on disarmament in June.

The final meeting of the preparatory committee for the special session is taking place in New York. The spring session of the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva ended on 21 April and a report of its work will be submitted to the special session. Mr. Frank Judd, the director of Voluntary Service Overseas, and a member of the national executive of the United Nations Association, has agreed to accompany the United Kingdom delegation as an independent adviser in liaison with British non-governmental organisations.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. As he knows that it is the fervent wish of millions of people that the special session should be successful and produce practical measures to bring about multlateral disarmament, will he give an assurance that the Prime Minister will lead the discussions, with a view to obtaining international agreement on banning the manufacture, as well as the stockpiling and use, of all chemical weapons?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister has said that she intends to lead our delegation at the beginning of the United Nations special session. We have paid great attention to the possibility of making progress on the chemical weapons question and we have tabled proposals—which we hope will be helpful—for dealing with the main obstacle of verification. We hope that all those concerned will look favourably on our proposals, so that we can make progress.

What have the Government done as a result of the agreement reached at the last United Nations special session on disarmament in 1978?

Both the last Government and this Government have tried to take every opportunity to help the negotiations between Governments. They are the only possible basis for progress on arms control and disarmament. The first and second special sessions can encourage, stimulate and spur on, but ultimately agreement is reached only by negotiation between Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that progress towards disarmament will be greatly aided if peace-loving nations are freed from the fear of aggression by countries that do not believe in democracy and if the United Nations has the ability to insist on the implementation of resolutions, such as resolution 502?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I entirely agree with him.

Why do the Government practice dual standards in such matters? Why do they oppose, as a matter of principle, the proliferation of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, but believe in the proliferation of conventional weapons, because they believe in arms sales?

We have answered many questions on conventional arms sales. When friends in the Third world or elsewhere come to us saying that they have established a need for a new piece of equipment, we encourage them to buy British instead of Russian or French. That seems perfectly reasonable. However, we must deal with the tensions and disputes that create the demand for arms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the workings of the European Economic Community ban on Argentine imports to all member States.

Yes, Sir. The solidarity that our Community partners showed so quickly and effectively has been an essential element in the international pressure on Argentina to withdraw from the Falkland Islands. The ban, which affects about a quarter of Argentina's exports, will have a serious impact on Argentina's economy in the absence of an early political settlement.

Is my hon. Friend entirely satisfied that the ban is working fully and effectively in all respects? With 12 days to go before the renewal date, does he anticipate that, unfortunately, it will have to be renewed?

We have no reason to suppose that the ban is not working effectively, although obviously its full effects will be felt only with time. If the situation requires, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary w ill ask his colleagues in the Community to renew the ban when he sees them on 8 and 9 May.

Will the Minister confirm that, notwithstanding the initial statement from the Common Market countries, it will be necessary—quite apart from the question of a renewal date—for many of the Common Market countries to pass the appropriate legislation to enforce the ban, as reported in the communiqué? Is it not a fact that some of the Common Market countries are very hesitant about enforcing the ban by such legislation?

If we think it necessary to ask the Community countries to take action to implement the ban fully, I hope that they will not hesitate to pass the necessary legislation.

Since the battles that we are fighting in the South Atlantic are being fought on behalf of all our Community partners, and since they accept that, wall my hon. Friend ask them whether they are prepared to make a substantial contribution from the Community budget towards fighting everybody's battles? I am sure that they would be only too happy to comply.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will note my hon. Friend's views.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps he has taken to persuade the Polish Government to terminate martial law in Poland.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) on 5 February. These measures were designed to persuade the Polish authorities to lift martial law, release those detained and resume a genuine dialogue with the Church and Solidarity. The demonstrations in Poland over the weekend are further evidence that the continuation of martial law is unacceptable to the Polish people. We are continuing to make our views clear to the Polish authorities whenever appropriate opportunities arise.

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and underline his recognition of the fact that the Polish people showed their distress at the appalling situation imposed on them by the Jaruzelski regime over the weekend? Will the Government continue to do everything possible to make the Polish regime lift martial law and to set the Polish people free once more?

My hon. Friend is correct. Last week the Polish Government announced the release of some detainees and some relaxation in the conditions of martial law. However, my hon. Friend and the House will have noticed that only yesterday aspects of martial law were reintroduced, which must be a matter of great concern to the people of Poland and to the West. We shall take every opportunity to impress upon the Polish Government our concern that a genuine dialogue should be reintroduced and that martial law should be removed.

Will the Minister accept that few of those who saw the television pictures showing the military action taken against the civilian demonstrators in Poland over the weekend were anything other than horrified? Despite the Government's preoccupation with other matters, will they ensure that the views of the British people are fairly reflected and that the Polish Government understand our outrage?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. The large number of people who turned out to demonstrate on the streets of Warsaw on May Day showed the strong support that Solidarity retains. Only last week I met the Polish ambassador to the United Kingdom and impressed on him the fact that the British Government saw the removal of martial law, the beginning of a dialogue with the Polish people and the release of all detainees as necessary preconditions to the resumption of full and normal relations between this country and Poland.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many, if not all, of those of Polish descent who live in this country are unable to telephone their relatives in Poland? Will he make representations to the Polish Government to have the telephone link re-established?

We shall certainly do all in our power to enable those in the United Kingdom who wish to maintain contact with friends or relatives in Poland to do so. My hon. Friend will know that the matter is ultimately within the control of the Polish authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Economic Community foreign policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Economic Community foreign policy.

In the London report on political co-operation agreed in October 1981 during our Presidency, Foreign Ministers of the Ten reaffirmed and strengthened their commitment to consultations on foreign policy questions and agreed on measures to improve the speed and efficiency of political co-operation. The swift and effective action by our partners following the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina is a striking demonstration of the solidarity which co-operation in foreign policy has made possible and which is an important pressure on Argentina to withdraw from the Falkland Islands.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the events of the last few weeks have emphasised the importance and necessity of having a common EEC foreign policy?

Indeed. This is an increasingly important factor in the world, and we are working hard to keep the Ten together.

Do not these developments, not only in the South Atlantic, but in the Middle East, emphasise the need for a continuing common foreign policy, so that we do not always find ourselves in the situation of having to respond to international developments?

I think that that is right. We are working in that direction, and that is why we have strengthened the machinery. However, the machinery is not much good unless there is a continuing political will.

What is the policy of the EEC Foreign Ministers towards help, both military and otherwise, for the military dictatorship in Turkey, which invaded a Commonwealth country in respect of which Britain has solemn treaty obligations to protect yet did absolutely nothing whatever about it? If Turkey either harmed the rest of Cyprus or invaded the Greek islands, would Britain go to her aid, in concert with the other EEC countries?

Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Alliance. We are keen that she should remain so and keep in the closest touch with us. Questions about Cyprus are a different matter, but as to internal developments in Turkey, we have noticed with satisfaction the timetable for the return to democracy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the quite disgraceful way in which the Irish Government broke ranks with our partners in the Community constitutes a major setback to all our hopes for such a common foreign policy?

The Irish Government joined the rest of the Ten in the practical measures against Argentina, which have played a big part in securing support for Britain. We think that the Irish Government made a mistake yesterday and that the line they took could be a hindrance to getting the peaceful settlement that we and they want.

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken note of the statement by Chancellor Schmidt, who has suggested that we should be moving towards a ceasefire? Has he also taken note of today's speech, reported on the Tapes, by the Foreign Secretary of Denmark? Do not those, and the views of other countries, clearly indicate that while they are happy to support economic sanctions, they are not prepared to support an all-out conflict, which could perhaps get worse and lead Britain into something much more unfavourable?

We understand the concern that our friends express and share the view that we need to move towards a peaceful settlement. I think they understand that as part of the movement towards a successful settlement, the solidarity of the European Ten is of enormous importance.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, to achieve increased political co-operation within the European Economic Community, he will propose specific measures to improve consultation and concerting of policies in other than economic matters.

As I have already indicated, the London report on political co-operation, agreed in October 1981, contains a number of measures designed to improve the working of political co-operation. These are being carried out.

Is it not clear that membership of the Community is the readiest weapon in the hands of the British Government to help them achieve their political objectives? But is it not equally clear that this membership poses a corresponding obligation not to place too great a strain on European Community solidarity and also imposes an obligation upon us to support, when the time comes, the vital national objectives of other members of the Community?

My hon. Friend is right. These obligations lie upon all member States, and we are doing our best to make that clear.

Is the Minister satisfied that there is sufficient co-ordination between the political advances made in the Community and those of the Council of Europe? During his visit to Strasbourg last week, was the right hon. Gentleman aware of the motion on Turkey put forward by the Socialist Group of 21 countries, and does he take that into consideration in his negotiations on political matters with the Ten?

Yes, we try to keep the two in harmony as far as we can. There was a good discussion on Turkey between Ministers in the Council of Europe last week, in which the Turkish Foreign Minister played a helpful part.

When my right hon. Friend discusses co-operation with his Common Market partners, will he remind them that the EEC represents about half of the world's democracies and that what we are doing in the Falklands is defending democracy and the rule of law?

I think that our partners clearly understand that when they act to support us they are not simply doing us a favour but are supporting principles of international law that are extremely important for them as well.

Is the Minister aware that political co-operation among Western European countries is perfectly feasible without the Treaty of Rome and that the United Kingdom's relations with other European countries were happier, more constructive and more productive before we joined the Community than since?

If the hon. Gentleman and his friends believe that, they are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. The fact is that political co-operation has been painfully and slowly constructed on the basis of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning current negotiations within the European Economic Community concerning adjustment of the British contribution to the Community budget.

The Foreign Ministers of the Community had a thorough discussion of the budget problem on 27 April and are agreed on the need for an urgent solution. The next discussion of this subject may take place during the meeting already planned for 8 and 9 May. I have been continuing to press for a settlement which will be fair for Britain and fair for the Community too.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that Britain will accept nothing less than the existing arrangements, preferably for a period of four rather than three years? In any consideration of political co-operation, is it not important that acceptance of our requirements as fair and just should be the first step to be taken by our so-called partners?

It is a pity that the arrangement agreed in 1980 did not endure longer. I should also like to negotiate a longer arrangement this time. I cannot say whether that will be possible, but my predecessor worked for that. Indeed, I have worked for that since taking office and will continue to do so. However, we shall have to see how the discussions go.

In any discussions on the budget or wider aspects, will my right hon. Friend remind our EEC partners that after the last war it was British forces who liberated all those countries? We expect their support now that we are trying to liberate British territory.

My hon. Friend's remarks are perfectly true. However, we are grateful to the member States—I have expressed our gratitude to them—for the support that they have given us over the issue that is now causing us so much immediate difficulty. They came to our assistance positively and speedily and that has been very helpful.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the United Kingdom's bargaining position has not been circumscribed by concessions made in the negotiations on trade sanctions against Argentina? Will he further assure the House that the massive farm price increases that the Government agreed to last week were not the result of a deal made during the sanctions negotiations?

The action in the Falkland Islands and the help and support that we have received from the Community is not in any way associated with the budget or the mandate. In the meetings that I have had none of the Community Ministers suggested that that was so. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can have confidence.