asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to meet the Foreign Secretary of Israel in the near future to discuss the situation in the Middle East.

I have at present no plans to do so. But the Government are deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East and are in touch with all the parties concerned, including of course the Israeli Government.

Given that the Israelis have by right a State with a territorial boundary, should not the Palestinians have a similar right? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that such a right is recognised by the United Nations?

Our support for the Palestinians' right to self-determination was made clear in the Venice declaration. The principle of self-determination is contained in the United Nations charter. It applies equally to the Palestinians and to the people of the Falkland Islands. We have made public our position on this issue.

In view of the tragic assault on the Israeli ambassador,, and in the light of my right hon. Friend's heavy commitments, will he arrange for one of the Foreign Office Ministers to go to Israel to explain to the Israeli Government that their present action is making life exceedingly difficult for their friends?

The Israeli Government are already clear about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. It is always possible to contemplate such a visit, but I do not think that at present it would take us any further. The act that occurred in London was horrific, and the House has already expressed its great shock and dismay.

I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's last remarks. There is universal horror in the United Kingdom at the cowardly shooting of the Israeli ambassador who, with integrity and skill, has served his country as well as any Israeli ambassador of my acquaintance since, the war. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Israeli Government that to add to the shock of the Iranian victory over Iraq the humiliation of the Arab people in Lebanon will risk throwing the whole of the Arab world into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism and that nothing could be more contrary to Israel's real interests?

I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about what is now occuring in that region of the world. Not only the invasion—if that is the correct word, and I think it is—by Israel into Lebanon but the events between Iran and Iraq are the causes of the highest tension and the greatest danger. One cannot know where such a situation will end. The potential dangers make us extremely concerned. In conjunction with our European partners, the United States and all our friends around the world, we will do whatever we can and whatever we judge to be best to try to bring this high point of tension to an early end.

rose—

Order. This matter comes up several times in later questions.

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

Her Majesty's Government maintain diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and have no desire to intervene in their internal affairs. The release of two detained British citizens earlier this year removed an important obstacle to better relations. We have made it clear to the Iranian Government for some time now that we are ready for an improved relationship which must be based on mutual respect and advantage.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in so far as Iranian intentions may be expansionist they provide a real threat to Western and, indeed, British security? Does he further agree that the wrong way is to throw money at the problem? Therefore, is not the Saudi and Gulf offer to the Iranians, as reported last week, of no less a sum than $25 billion utterly wrong?

We have certainly been worried by some aspects of Iranian activity, perhaps not all of it official, in the Gulf. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about that.

Is the Minister contemplating a visit to or consultations with the Gulf States, where there is great uncertainty about future Iranian intentions?

I am in close touch. I had good talks yesterday with the Secretary-General of the Gulf Co-operation Council. We are in close touch and our views are known.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern among Iranian students in Britain at the implication of Iranian diplomats in the harassment of students who are thought to be the enemies or opponents of the existing regime in Iran? Will the Minister make it clear that we do not expect diplomats accredited to Britain to behave in that way?

I have had some reports, but they are difficult to confirm. Anyone who believes that any Iranian or other foreign diplomat is breaking British law must let the police or us know. The difficulty is that often such allegations are not substantiated by evidence that could help the police.

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend will not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of another county, but will he confirm that at least 4,000-plus official executions have taken place under the present regime and that there are at least 40,000 political prisoners in that country? What new action will the Government be taking to draw that incredible and deplorable fact to the attention of the appropriate international bodies?

I cannot confirm the figures, because they are hard to get at. They certainly represent a real increase in human misery. We have taken every opportunity in the United Nations and the United Nations Commission of Human Rights to draw attention to what is happening and to urge the Iranian Government to respect the human rights of their citizens. The Secretary-General has been asked to prepare a report on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to representations made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the case of Vladimir Slepak.

We have raised Mr. Slepak's case in direct bilateral contacts with the Soviet Government and at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe review meeting in Madrid. We regret that no response has been received.

Does the Minister accept that there has been a somewhat disappointing response by the Soviet authorities? Nevertheless, will the Minister seek assurances from the Soviet authorities that when Vladimir Slepak has completed his exile—I hope later this year—his application for an exit visa, tabled over 10 years ago, will be granted so that he and his wife may emigrate to the land of their choice?

I agree that the response from the Soviet Union is extremely disappointing. I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. We shall certainly take any available opportunity to make renewed representations to the Soviet Government.

Will my hon. Friend use his good offices in relation to our policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union to ensure that in such cases, as in others, the Soviet Union upholds the principle enshrined in the Helsinki accord? Will the Government look again at the grant of £85,400 which the Foreign Office devotes to the Great Britain-USSR Association, because I see no evidence that that body brings the Soviet regime more into line with the Helsinki accord?

We have used the opportunity of the review meeting in Madrid to renew the view of most Western countries that the human rights provisions of the Helsinki agreement should be properly respected. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, these matters are kept constantly under review. We shall continue such support only if we think that it meets the interests of the association and of the United Kingdom to give that help.

I associate myself with the disappointment felt at the lack of response to the case of Vladimir Slepak. Have the Government received any response from the Soviet Government about the Vaschenko and Chymkhalov families, who are incarcerated in the American embassy in Moscow and who were offered asylum recently by the Prime Minister in answer to a question that I tabled?

This matter is primarily for the United States Government. I can report no new developments at present.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the political support being given to the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom's European Economic Community partners in relation to the Falkland Islands.

Yes, Sir. We are grateful to have received the strong and continuing political support which we have from our partners.

Does the Secretary of State agree that many of our EC partners have expressed concern that a military victory will not solve the problem in the South Atlantic? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that they have been urging the British Government to lay the basis for a lasting settlement there and to take that on board as a more important responsibility than they have so far?

What will happen after repossession exercises the mind of Her Majesty's Government to a great extent. Naturally, there is international interest in what will occur then. I think that it is an open question at this stage. It depends on the precise circumstances at the time. It is right that we should have discussions with our partners and other friendly nations about what will take place. We have thought about a number of possibilities for the future, but exactly what happens at that point must depend on the circumstances.

Were the Government surprised and disappointed at the failure of the French Government to join Britain and the United States in vetoing the ceasefire resolution? If so, what representations have the Government made to France?

We have been grateful throughout for the general support that France has given us. That was expressed in a forthright way by President Mitterrand at the conclusion of the summit conference. I can go no further than to draw my hon. Friend's attention to those words.

Who is right—the Government of France, who claim that sanctions are being implemented, or the chairman of Aerospatiale Dassault, who proclaims the value of its wares being sold to Latin American countries? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary have any faith in end user certificates? Could not sales to Venezuela easily go south?

I do not want to comment in a definitive sense on the hon. Gentleman's latter point, because hon. Members will have different views. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the support that we have received from the French Government. They have put themselves to a considerable amount of trouble in the economic measures that they have already taken. We are confident that they have contributed to the effect that the measures have had on the Argentine economy, which is certainly in a very bad state. I shall leave the matter there.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the support that we have received from the French Government has been unfaltering throughout? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have wide support for his determination to maintain maximum support from our allies for the policies that he is pursuing?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is part of my daily purpose to maintain maximum support from our partners and from other countries.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not disturbed by the fact that last week we were in a minority of one to nine in the Security Council, whereas on 3 April we were in a majority of nine to one? Does he agree that one reason for that is that none of our allies in Europe or on the other side of the Atlantic supported the British veto last Thursday?

No, Sir. The resolution that was vetoed had a superficial attraction, but, when one went into it carefully, one found that it did not adequately link the ceasefire with withdrawal, which we made clear from the very outset was an absolute precondition for accepting any such resolution. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the United States voted against the resolution, as did the United Kingdom. Therefore, we had that support. Japan voted the other way—I think on the basis that she hoped that Argentina would withdraw, but, of course, that has not yet occurred. The important reason for our action was that the linkage between the ceasefire and withdrawal was not explicit and clear in the way that we believe it has to be if an agreement of that kind is to be successful.

Is it not true that, in trying to explain the shambles of the American voting at the Security Council, Mr. Haig made it clear this week that he believed the resolution on which America finally wished to abstain contained the seeds of a possible basis on which the Argentines might have withdrawn? Five days have now passed. Why have the Government not used those five days to secure agreement in the Security Council on a resolution which moved the other 5 per cent. towards being something which would be wholly satisfactory to all sides?

We have had over two months now of trying to negotiate through other people and intermediaries with the Argentine Government, and we have always landed in the same position, and we certainly should have done so had the resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman referred come to fruition, Frankly, the answer is for the Argentines to withdraw. A ceasefire and withdrawal could be arranged immediately. The Argentines show no sign of doing that at the moment. The issue is as simple as that. To try to cause delay at this time and for us to allow ourselves to get bogged down in further rounds of negotiation, which no doubt would end as the previous efforts did, would not be a satisfactory solution, particularly when the simple act of withdrawal is all that the Argentines need to do to end hostilities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of the Jordanian Government to discuss further moves to bring about lasting peace in the Middle East.

My right hon. Friend hopes to take up before long the outstanding invitation to visit Jordan. Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Jordanian Government about recent developments in the Middle East.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to obtain a lasting peace in the Middle East, all the interested parties will need to enter into negotiations and be prepared to consider reasonable compromises? In this connection, is not the intransigence of the PLO, exemplified by its rejection not only of the Fahd plan but of the Venice proposals, a major obstacle to peace? Surely it is essential for Jordan to become involved. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his right hon. Friend will do everything possible to bring about that involvement?

Jordan certainly has or could have, an important role, but it is not, and does not regard itself as a substitute for the PLO or other representatives of the Palestinian people. Those who want to bring in Jordan need to take some account of Jordanian views, particularly their views on the West Bank and Jerusalem and the proliferation of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.

Valuable as a visit to Jordan would be, does the Minister agree that all Governments in the area will have to be involved in a lasting peace settlement, as the question asked, and that therefore the basic Community approach of the Venice declaration is correct? Will he accept from me, in view of the fact that last week I visited the Gulf States, that there is a growing recognition that the new Government in Egypt should be drawn back into this wider discussion process?

I agree. The renewal of links between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world will probably take a little time. Our view on most of these matters is very close to that of the Government of President Mubarak, with whom we are in close touch.

Does the Minister agree that the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador was an appalling act which ought to be condemned? Does it not testify to the callous aggression of the Israelis against the Lebanon? Is he aware that a bad impression has been given by Israel through its disregard for civilian casualties and its claim for lebensraum? What assistance has been given to impress upon the American Government the necessity of seeing that there is some restriction on Israeli aggression?

A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend told the House of his conversations with Mr. Haig yesterday. Certainly we are doing everything that we can with the Americans, our European partners, the United Nations, and directly to emphasise to the Israeli Government that the brutal assault on the Israeli ambassador could be no justification for what has happened since and that it must be right for Israel, in its own interests as well as in the interests of everyone else, to comply with the Security Council's resolutions on this subject.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the first priority must be a ceasefire and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Lebanon, we must seek to ensure that Lebanon and the Lebanese people are not destroyed as a result of the continuing disputes between the PLO and the Israelis?

Yes, Sir. Lebanon has been the victim of forces which are quite outside its control. The suffering of innocent people has now reached intolerable proportions. We have told the Lebanese ambassador here that if there are specific humanitarian needs which the Lebanese Government can identify and with which they think that we could help, he should let us know. I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.

Will the Government explain to the PLO, through whatever means they have, that if there is to be what everyone in the area wants—lasting peace—the PLO must recognise Israel's right to exist in security and renounce terrorism, whether it is in the Middle East or in the streets of London?

We have used the opportunities available to us to explain to the PLO for many months now our view that what it calls the armed struggle is futile and that acts of terrorism diminish, not strengthen, its cause. The PLO is well aware of our view on that subject. It would be helpful in this respect if Israelis of all persuasions, and in particular the Israeli Government, were to show some recognition of the need for a counterpart to that—that Palestinians, too, have political rights.

In view of the gravity of the situation in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision of the United States to veto the resolution calling for a ceasefire? Can the West really continue to stand idly by while the armed forces of Israel commit genocide in Lebanon?

The United States supported the earlier Security Council resolution, which called for a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal. There is no doubt from the remarks that the President of the United States made here yesterday that that remains his deeply held view and that his emissary, Mr. Habib, is in Israel to help to achieve that purpose.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a number of Israeli allegations that the Palestinians have been making incursions into Northern Israeli territory from Jordan? When his right hon. Friend meets the Jordanian representatives, will he seek assurances from the Jordanian Government that they are doing their utmost to control those incursions? Will he also seek assurances from the Israeli Government that those allegations are not a precursor to Israeli troop movements into Jordan, as has happened in Lebanon?

Our information is that the Jordanian Government do their best in this direction, and I think that the Israelis understand that. In fact, there were no artillery or rocket attacks by the PLO across the Israel-Lebanon border between the implementation of the ceasefire in July 1981 and 9 May 1982, when the Palestinians responded to Israeli air attacks on their position in the Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the situation in the South Atlantic.

I had very full discussions with Mr. Haig on the situation in the South Atlantic as well as on other matters of mutual interest during the Versailles economic summit and again during his visit to London with President Reagan. I shall see him again at the forthcoming NATO summit meeting, and I intend to remain in close touch with him.

Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate Mr. Haig on President Reagan's speech yesterday and to point out that there is no better place for the beginning of a crusade for freedom than in the South Atlantic, where the sovereign territory of a democracy has been attacked by a dictatorship? Does my right hon. Friend agree that at this critical point it is important that none of the discussions with the United States, with our allies, and with the United Nations should be allowed to impose any political inhibition on our forces?

I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Prime Minister and the Government have already thanked the President direct for the speech that he made yesterday. I assure my hon. Friend that no political inhibitions have been put on the military commanders in the field.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Haig made it clear to him that the United States would not feel able to participate in any international force to guarantee the security of the Falklands after repossession, nor would any Latin American country, except in the context of an agreement by Britain to negotiate on their future with the Argentine Government? As the right hon. Gentleman asserted his intention of supporting such negotiations in a television broadcast on 27 May, will he assure the House that the Government have not closed their mind to such negotiations?

Mr. Haig did not close the door on the possibility of what might be arranged in future. The future is, of course, unknown, and we cannot say with any precision what arrangements might be made. However, once the islands have been repossessed, it will be the Government's task to do whatever is appropriate, with as many friends as may be available to help us, to re-establish the islanders, who are going through a terrible time, to re-establish security on the islands and to bring about the greatest degree of stability that is possible in the shortest possible time. It is fair to say that the United States has not closed doors on possibilities that might be explored in future. I cannot go further than that at this stage.

Is it right that the United States, like Latin American Governments, has made it clear that it is prepared to support participation in a security force for protecting the islands after repossession only if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to negotiate the future of the islands with the Argentine Government? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman again that it is less than a fortnight since he committed himself to such negotiations. What has made him change his mind?

There is no commitment of that sort by the United States and there is no barring of any possible future actions. We must wait and see. We have discussed the possible circumstances that might arise after repossession has been achieved. Until that event takes place and we can see the precise circumstances in which it happens, I do not think that it is possible to go any further. I have made it clear throughout that, in the long term, there must be a settlement in the region if we are to have peace, which must be the precursor and prerequisite of prosperity. If reports are to be believed, during the past fortnight the Argentine forces on the islands have treated the islanders in a way that will cause a good deal of hostility. I am sure that they will feel like that. We shall have a more difficult situation to deal with after repossession than we would have had a fortnight ago. It remains true that at the end of the day there must be a settlement, however long and whatever form it may take, if there is to be prosperity in the region and for the islanders.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that this issue will arise on a later question on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions or communications with the Foreign Minister of Chile.

No, Sir.

Should the Minister have discussions with his equivalent in Chile, will he remember that the Chilean Government are a Fascist Government, something which his hon. Friends seem only recently to have discovered about Argentina? Is he aware that many poor people disappear in Chile, and further, that whereas Chileans once had the opportunity to come to Britain as refugees, the Government have now stopped that immigration? Will he reconsider the Government's policy of supplying armaments to such a regime and relax any rules that the Government have that prevent these poor people for corning to Britain as refugees, as they used to do when Labour Governments were in office?

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our policy on the sale of arms to Chile. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to sell arms or equipment to Chile that are likely to be used for internal repression. There has been no change in this policy. We have left the Chilean Government in no doubt that their record on human rights has given rise to deep concern in Britain. We shall continue to take every appropriate opportunity to apply constructive pressure on the Chilean Government to improve their performance, but I see no need for the change of policy that the hon. Gentleman wants.

Does my hon. Friend find it rather odd that Labour Members spend so much time talking about the need not to damage relations with South American nations, but seem prepared to do so with one country that has not by any means been unhelpful towards the present struggle? Does lie accept that within the OAS and otherwise Chile has riot been unhelpful? Will he confirm that Chile has no territorial dispute with the United Kingdom?

I am not responsible for the actions of Labour Members. However, I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said about the Chilean Government's attitude to the Falklands dispute, which has been restrained and neutral. They have abstained without comment on the resolutions that have come before the Rio Treaty signatories. There is no quarrel between ourselves and the Chilean Government on territorial matters.

Will the Minister agree that in that so-called not unhelpful country the chronicle of repression, the attack upon human rights, torture, abduction and killings continue unabated? Will he take this opportunity to refute any suggestion that there will be any military tie-up or co-operation between Britain and that bloody country—[Interruption.]—that bloodstained country that has much to answer for?

It is not our practice to comment on individual defence contracts or the possible involvement of third parties in the Falklands dispute. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he is justified in using such extravagant language on a subject that seems to be one of the few on which all Labour Members appear to be united.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet authorities about the case of Alexander Paritsky, sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 1981.

Mr. Paritsky's case was raised twice by the United Kingdom delegation to the CSCE review meeting in Madrid at plenary sessions in November 1981, and was included in a list of cases handed to the leader of the Soviet delegation in December 1981. We regret that there has been no Soviet response.

I thank my hon. Friend for the Government's enthusiastic action in these matters. Is he aware of the official resolution passed by the European Parliament last month, on the initiative of the Staffordshire East MEP, Robert Moreland, and a Dutch representative, voicing concern at the alarming decrease in the number of exit permits being given by the Soviet Government to Jews who wish to leave the USSR, the continuing harassment and arrest of Jews who wish to leave, the responsibilities of the Soviet Union—

Order. This question deals with Alexander Paritsky. The hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question must be confined to Alexander Paritsky's case and must not be broadened.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the actions of the Soviet Union involve, by inference, the case of Alexander Paritsky among others? What do the Government propose to do about the call for Foreign Ministers to act together to take action in these matters?

I congratulate the European Parliament on the initiative that it has taken. My hon. and learned Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union in 1981 was 9,800, the lowest for about 10 years. We shall continue to use every available opportunity to make the Soviet Union aware of the strong feelings in this country as well as in other Western countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations second special session on disarmament.

The meeting opened in New York on 7 June. The general debate will last until 23 June. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to speak on 16 June. The Government intend to play a full and constructive role at the special session, which they hope will give fresh impetus to current negotiations for arms control and disarmament.

I welcome the Prime Minister's attendance at this most important conference. How many Prime Ministers, or equivalents, of other major nations will be participating? Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government will bring forward fresh initiatives at the conference, designed to promote balanced multilateral disarmament, which our people earnestly crave?

I am not aware of the arrangements made by other Governments and I do not know who will be speaking on their behalf. The need to bring forward new initiatives is on our minds constantly. The top priority is to concentrate on making progress, and if possible to reach agreement, in the negotiations on disarmament that are already under way or about to begin. I refer to MBFR, intermediate nuclear force talks and strategic arms reduction talks. I am sure that progress should be made in those talks. That is the top priority before starting anything new. However, it is always in our minds to be ready, if we believe it helpful, to propose fresh possibilities for negotiation. We must all hope that the existing discussions will make further progress.

Is the Secretary of State aware that millions of people in this country and other countries hope for a positive outcome from the second special session on disarmament? Surely it would have strengthened the Government's hand if, in putting forward their proposals to the special session, they had sought the support of right hon. and hon. Members for the detailed proposals. Surely it is still not too late for the Government to ask the House to express a view on those proposals as well as any proposals that the Government might feed into the new strategic arms reduction talks that are about to start.

I do not think that anyone is in any doubt that the whole House and all the British people wish progress to be made in arms reduction talks. The trouble is that over the past 20 years or more no progress has been made. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed on the other side of the Iron Curtain is a sustained build-up of arms. It takes two to reach an agreement and two to negotiate a verifiable agreement to reduce arms, but that remains our objective. It clearly was the objective of the Labour Government. I do not think that we need a debate or need to take any soundings about that to know what people want.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss the operation of the Luxembourg compromise on voting; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom national intersts in the light of the European Economic Community of Ministers' decision to accept majority voting on the farm prices review.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to safeguard the United Kingdom's essential interests in the light of the European Economic Community farm price review decision being taken other than by unanimity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the subject of the Luxembourg arrangements for decision-making at the council meetings of the European Economic Community.

As I informed the House on 26 May, I made a statement at the opening of the Foreign Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 24 May about the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the setting aside at the Agriculture Council on 18 May of the Community's established practice of taking decisions by consensus where important national interests are involved. I asked that there should be early discussions of these issues and the Council agreed to hold such a discussion on 20 June.

rose—

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

Now that the unprecedented decision has been made to shatter the Luxembourg compromise and as so many Common Market groupies are represented in the House through the Liberals and Social Democrats, Sir Henry Plumb, and in the other place, who want to see majority voting on all issues, not just on this one, what guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give us that there will not be a repetition of that occurrence, other than by accepting the Labour Party policy of getting out of the Common Market and joining the world?

The treaty provides for consensus voting in some cases and majority voting in others. We adhere to that. The so-called Luxembourg compromise was the equivalent of a convention. It is not unknown even for conventions in the House sometimes to be broken. The fact that it was broken on this occasion is a serious matter. I have treated it as a serious matter, as I said in my original answer. I look forward to discussing the matter further with our partners on 20 June.

When will the Foreign Secretary realise that the breakdown in the Luxembourg compromise means that the British Government are no longer able to protect our national interests? When will the right hon. Gentleman accept the logic of that and realise that withdrawal from the EEC is the only way that any British Government can protect our national interests?

The Government's policy towards the European Community is well known. The Labour Government made their attitude towards the Community well known. We do not underestimate the importance of what happened on 18 May. It is right for the Community and the Foreign Ministers to discuss together how that matter can be rectified. The decision-making procedure is a very important part of the Community or of any organisation.

If the Secretary of State refuses to accept the need for us to withdraw from the Common Market, will he do something about the problem and take other retaliatory action against the Common Market, such as refusing to continue to pay some of our contributions until the matter is put right? Does the Secretary of State accept that this is just as much an attack on British sovereignty as the Falklands issue?

I regret to say that I disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the consent of Parliament to Britain's adherence to the EEC, which was obtained on the White Paper terms of 1972, and the confirmation by the people in 1975, was based on the assumption and the advocacy of this veto, which has now disappeared? In view of that undoubted fact, are not the terms on which Britain joined the EEC now shown to be defective? Are not major constitutional issues raised in respect of our membership and the terms on which we joined?

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. That assumption was a factor in the decision that we took in the early 1970s and during the referendum campaign. As the convention endured until last month, this is a serious breach. The right way to set about it is to discuss the matter fully with the other members. I hope that we can re-establish the so-called veto by one means or another. That is what I shall set out to do.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in addition to the special position of the post-1966 entrants and their undoubted rights to rely on the continuance of the Luxembourg compromise, on the faith of which they adhered to the Community, there is also a substantial body of international legal opinion that believes that the Luxembourg compromise, although not enshrined in the treaty, is now subsumed into the law of the Community as a whole? Will my right hon. Friend press both those points on the Ministers of the member States?

I shall take careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. It is true that the so-called compromise was an agreement to disagree, because, even in 1966, the members of the Community were not agreed about it. It has been adopted since then as a convention. I am aware of the views that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed, although it is also fair to say that a number of other lawyers in other countries would not put such a clear-cut view on it as my right hon. and learned Friend. I should not like to pretend that the task that faces me on 20 June will be easy, because there are different views. I am clear about the safeguard that the convention provides and its importance.

As the Government stated clearly that they would fight the proposals on farm prices, which were to be linked with the budget, but accepted the farm price increases and a wholly unsatisfactory budgetary arrangement, what confidence can we have that the Government will stand firm on 20 June? Will the Government state that they will decide, if they cannot get what they want, to refuse to make any further contributions to the EEC or consider coming out of the CAP until there is a satisfactory solution in relation to both the future budget proposals and the Luxembourg compromise?

The hon. Gentleman confuses a number of matters. The farm price decisions were taken on 18 May. Those decisions are valid in Community law and have already come into force. There was no direct connection, apart from the fact that it was used on this occasion, between the procedure for taking decisions and the mandate for farm prices. The importance of what happened on 18 May is that it relates to the procedure in the Community. We shall fight to restore what appears to have been lost. I re-emphasise that originally it was an agreement to disagree. There never has been unanimity in the Community about that matter. The convention worked well for 16 years. I hope that we can re-establish it. I believe that we shall be able to do so. We shall discuss that matter on 20 June.

Is it not a generally recognised fact that the Government have made a pretty good job of defending British interests within the EEC, whatever the prevailing conventions? As we are members of that institution, and remain members of it, is it not in our interests that it should have effective decision-taking processes? Is it not therefore vital that the issue of the veto should be closely redefined to make sure that it is effective in defending vital national interests?

It is fair to say that the Government have been able to secure better arrangements with our Community partners than the Labour Government. I think that we have been able to achieve at least that. Will my hon. Friend remind me of the second part of his question?

Redefining the veto.

I do not think that I have anything further to add at this stage. I think that the actual definition of it may prove to be difficult, just as it was in 1966. This is what we are going to discuss on 20 June. I cannot say anything more in advance of the discussions. I did, however, make the point of expressing the British Government's view at the outset of the last Foreign Affairs Council. I have asked for a separate discussion on it at the next Foreign Affairs Council. It is on the basis of that request—because of the importance that we attach to it—that the discussion will take place.

Who runs British foreign policy? Is it the Foreign Office and the much-maligned Foreign Office civil servants, or is it Downing Street? Has the Foreign Secretary seen that the political editor of The Times has outlined in detail on the front page the very real rift that seems to exist between Downing Street and the Foreign Office and that Peter Jenkins in The Guardian talks of a diplomatic rump in Downing Street? Are these reports completely without foundation?

Whatever the answer to that question, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not run British foreign policy. I would not comment upon highly speculative pieces in the newspapers that are written from time to time for one reason or another. The answer is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister charged me with responsibility for British foreign policy, for better or for worse. I do my best to fulfil that responsibility.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that as the substantial part of the fisheries resources of the EEC is located in United Kingdom waters, and as the Community had no policy on fisheries until the eve of United Kingdom accession, any agreement on a fisheries policy without the operation of the Luxembourg compromise would be a sell-out of our fishermen?

I know that negotiations on fisheries have been going on for a long time. It is an extremely important issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in that Ministry are still involved in negotiations, which we hope to bring to a successful conclusion. We are acutely conscious of the importance of the industry to this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his current aims for achieving reforms in the European Economic Community.

We are working for progress in many matters, including the development of non-agricultural Community policies, changes to the CAP, a fisheries settlement, arrangements to correct our budget problem in 1983 and beyond, and clarification of the procedures for decision-taking in the Council.

After 10 years of disappointment experienced in negotiations under Governments of both parties, can the Minister see any way in which we can achieve permanent budgetary restructuring that does not involve dismantling, or Britain's removal from, the CAP? Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's Hansard, which shows that we are now paying food import taxes of about £1 per pound on beef and of over 50p per pound on butter and that exports of cheap subsidised food to Russia are breaking all records?

We made some progress during the course of last year in reaching agreement on the way in which the balance of Community policies and Community spending could be shifted away from the predominance of agriculture. My hon. Friend, who follows these matters with care, will know that the figures show that some progress has been made in that direction. It is certainly not enough. We have also achieved, in contrast to the previous Government, substantial refunds on our budget contribution. Again, it is not fully satisfactory and not for long enough. To some extent therefore, I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. I regard that, as I think he does, as a reason for persevering rather than despairing.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement, widely reported yesterday, that we are to come to an agreement on the common fisheries policy? Can he comment on these rumours? Will he give an undertaking that we shall maintain the 12-mile limit for British fisheries, a 50-mile dominant zone and that there will be adequate compensation for deep water fleets for the losses they have made and that jobs will be obtained for the men who have lost them?

These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, together with his Minister of State, is defending British fishing interests with great staunchness. A good deal of work has been done on this subject recently. There is an important meeting of the Fisheries Council next week. I do not think that I had better go further.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reforms in European Economic Community procedures he proposes.

I am not sure why I did not group this with earlier questions. The answer is that it is necessary to discuss the Community's decision-making procedures, and that we shall do on 20 June.

Is the Foreign Secretary in a position to give the House up-to-date information on the arrangements to be made for the forthcoming assembly elections? Is he impressing on other members of the Common Market the fact that the system of proportional representation that they are trying to foist upon us is completely alien to British tradition? Will he further assure the House that he is doing what he can to discourage the use of the term "European Parliament"? It is not a parliament at all, but an assembly—and a pretty useless and expensive one at that.

This matter which, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, is important, is under consideration by the Council and by the Government. I have no proposal to make at the moment.

Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of discussing with the 11 members of the European Democratic Party their vote to the effect that the farm price issue should be decided by a majority decision? In view of the fact that one of them, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is present today, can he say whether he has received any assurance that there will be no repetition of that conduct?

I have not had such a discussion as my hon. Friend suggests, although it might occur at some moment. I have no proposal to change the decision-making procedures in so far as they are laid down in the Treaty. It may be the case that other members of the Community will propose changes in due course, but I have no proposals to make at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the occasions since June 1979 that Her Majesty's Government have used their formal reserve under the Luxembourg arrangements in the Council of the European Economic Community.

The only occasion that the United Kingdom has formally invoked the Luxembourg compromise since June 1979 was at the Agriculture Council on 18 May.

Is it not a fact that the ending of the Luxembourg compromise came about only when this country happened to use it? Was it not a stab in the back for other members of the Community to act as they did at that time? Were they not guilty of stabbing us in the back one day, hijacking us the following day and then holding us to ransom because of the difficulties in which we find ourselves?

It was extremely regrettable. I made the Government's views clearly known. I have already discussed the matter with some of our partners. It is important that an arrangement of this kind is reinstated and that it remains effective. That is what I shall try to achieve on 20 June.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in so far as the decision-making procedures of the Council of Ministers are concerned, it is enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in at least 20 of the most significant of its clauses, including, probably, those related to fisheries, that decisions can be taken only on the basis of unanimity? The Luxembourg compromise has not been abandoned because the Treaty already provides that unanimity should be the rule on the most important aspects of it. Does my right hon. Friend not also agree that since we joined the Community the Luxembourg compromise has been abused again and again, to the great disadvantage of this country? So far as Sir Henry Plumb and those who supported him, including myself, were concerned, Sir Henry was plumb right—

Order. I am hoping to call another hon. Member before time expires.

I should like to leave time for my right hon. Friend to reply.

I note my hon. Friend's views. As far as we are concerned, there was a breach of the convention on 18 May. That is a serious matter, and it is important for any body, certainly any representative assembly, to have clarity about its decision-making processes. We must have that.

Since, during the course of the last debate that we had on the subject of the Common Market, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the discussions on the future of the arrangements for agreement would be through discussion of the Genscher-Colombo plan, are the Government prepared to state now whether they accept or oppose the plan, which could mean a further development of the powers of the European Assembly and a step towards federalism? Can he give us an assurance that under no circumstances will the Government support that plan?

The discussions that we shall have will take place outside the scope of the Genscher-Colombo plan, but there is also a series of paragraphs in that plan relating to decision-making. Therefore, in the course of discussions of that plan the matter will come up again. As to the plan itself, the original plan has been considerably altered and there are a number of questions and issues that have not yet been settled, which will also be discussed on 20 June.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should welcome your guidance on a matter relating to rules of order in respect of parliamentary questions. I had always understood that there must be some ministerial responsibility in order that a question could be addressed to a Minister. This afternoon, oral question No. 9 related to the action of the Soviet Union in respect of a Soviet citizen. Therefore, I find it a little odd to see how any ministerial responsibility can arise, in respect of a United Kingdom Minister, with regard to this case.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put the question. Oral question No. 9 was allowed as was a similar question earlier on the Order Paper—oral question No. 3—about another Jewish citizen in the Soviet Union. I understand that that is allowed because under the Helsinki Agreement, we are able to pursue the question whether that agreement is being kept. However, I cannot give undertakings on the broader matter to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and taking up the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has raised—that I had oral question No. 11, which was not reached today—as you pointed out, oral questions Nos. 3 and 9 are similar, and on the same subject. No one is seeking to denigrate the importance of these issues, but since we have only 35 minutes to cover the world in Foreign Office questions would it be possible for the Minister answering to group questions such as these to save time?

That is up to the Minister, and the less that I say the safer I shall be.