asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made to the Chilean junta by Her Majesty's Government concerning violations of human rights over the course of the last three months.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government last protested to the Chilean Government concerning the violation of human rights in Chile.

The British ambassador in Santiago made representations to the Chilean Foreign Minister on 3 April. I also raised the question of human rights with the Chilean ambassador on 6 May.

I appreciate that the Minister's answer shows that the Government are not prepared to be selective in their condemnation of Fascist tyranny, but what are the Chilean Government doing in response to the representations that have been made? Am I not right in thinking that singularly little has been done in response to similar representations that have been made by the Government since 1979?

Representations have been made over a period of time by the Government and their predecessors. The hon. Gentleman has probably studied the report of the Special Rapporteur of the United Nations General Assembly, which was published in November 1981. That report lists the areas of concern, and they are well known to the Chileans. We have impressed upon them our hope that they will show by their actions this year that they appreciate the importance of the issue and the need to move forward to a more acceptable position.

Does the Minister remember the torturing of Sheila Cassidy, who is now president of the Chilean human rights committee? Does he further remember that William Beausire, who is a British as well as a Chilean citizen, was kidnapped from a plane in Argentina while on his way to Paris, taken back to Chile and tortured there? We have reason to believe that that young man is still alive. Are the British Government doing anything to get William Beausire home and to find out what the Chilean Government have done?

Both those cases are familiar. The Chilean Government are well aware of our concern. They know that we do not regard either of those cases as closed. We have pressed them to pursue the matter as best they can, but there are obvious difficulties, of which the hon. Gentleman will be aware. I shall continue to draw the concern of the House about those people to the Chilean Government.

rose—

Order. I remind the House that questions must be about Chile.

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

Following the surrender of the Argentine forces on the islands, we are proceeding with all possible urgency on the task of rehabilitation. The task force has done most valuable work in the re-establishment of essential services in Port Stanley, including the schools, and in the provision of internal communications. The civil commissioner has sent us his assessment of the immediate requirements. These are being given priority and action has already been taken to identify suppliers and obtain shipping dates for the equipment most urgently needed, as well as to recruit further essential personnel.

Should not the Government stop making party capital out of the conflict and think hard about the future of the Falkland Islands? Has a form of United Nations trusteeship been completely ruled out?

I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make party capital out of this matter. Our priority is to get life on the islands back to normal as fast as we possibly can. The long-term future of the islands will have to be considered. In the meantime, I see no reason to form any firm ideas. There are more important things to do.

What estimate has the hon. Gentleman made of the cost of rehabilitation, reconstruction and development? Will a separate budget be made available for that purpose, or will the money come from the ODA allocation?

Until the civil commissioner has been able to complete his stocktaking of the damage that has been done and the property that has been lost, and until we have Lord Shackleton's report and recommendations as to what might be done in future, it is impossible to give the House a firm figure. However, when that becomes possible, it will be done. In the interval, I assure the House that a shortage of financial authority is unlikely to hold up any essential work.

Is my hon. Friend yet in a position to say whether the Argentine prisoners are producing any reaction from the new junta in the Argentine and whether there is any likelihood that it will stop any attempts at further hostilities?

As soon as we have a firm and reliable indication that hostilities have ceased and will not restart, we shall be anxious to return the prisoners of war to their native country. I hope and believe that we shall soon be in that position. There are indications, but it is difficult to know what they mean. However, I am glad to tell the House that we have been informed by the United Nations Secretary-General that, according to the Argentine representative at the United Nations, Flight Lieutenant Glover is to be released and should arrive in Montevideo this afternoon.

In view of the heavy price that was paid for ignoring evidence earlier in the year that the Argentines might be planning to invade the Falklands, will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Governments of Guatemala and Venezuela are left with no illusion about how seriously we would take it if they were to use force in pressing their claims against the independent Commonwealth countries of Belize and Guyana?

I do not want to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's preamble. The Governments of Guatemala and Venezuela must be aware of what has occurred. I hope that they will not embark upon similar reckless adventures. We have noted recent statements that the Government of Venezuela intend to pursue their frontier dispute with Guyana by peaceful means. Statements coming out of Guatemala are difficult to analyse.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his latest discussions with EEC Ministers about events in the Middle East.

Will the Minister acknowledge that the main problem in the Lebanon historically has been the intervention of far too many outside forces? What are the Government doing to implement the withdrawal of all external armed forces and ultimately to restore sovereignty to the Lebanese?

We are not directly involved in the main negotiations, but our view is clear. The first thing is to bring about the emergence of an effective Lebanese Government and the withdrawal of Israeli forces, as specified by the Security Council. It will then be for the Lebanese Government to decide future arrangements.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that all hon. Members are reluctant to see aggression succeed? Is not the first priority to get the Israelis out of the Lebanon rather than to get the Palestinians out of Beirut, because they are there with authority? To that end, does my right hon. Friend agree that our European partners and many right hon. and hon. Members would be happy for us to participate in any peacekeeping force that might be necessary to restore authority to the Lebanese?

There is a question on the Order Paper about a peacekeeping force. The first priority is to stop the killing in the Lebanon. That is why we support Mr. Habib's efforts.

Does the Minister accept what the Prime Minister said in the House last week—that the best way towards the restoration of peace would be for the PLO to leave and that she very much hoped that it would? Does the right hon. Gentleman know, as I learnt only two days ago, that the majority of the Lebanese people regard the PLO as unwanted guests whose behaviour has been disgraceful and whom they want to see leave as soon as possible?

I do not know how the hon. and learned Gentleman is able to judge the opinion of the majority of the Lebanese people. He will have noted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also said that she found nothing in the justification for Israel's action which carried conviction.

If my right hon. Friend wants to check Lebanese opinion, I suggest that he might try the Lebanese ambassador for a start. Will he confirm that it is no part of Her Majesty's Government's policy to allow countries to dictate who their neighbours should be or the form of Government that should exist in neighbouring countries?

That is right.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that neither he nor the Foreign Secretary will be deterred from expressing views about the current activity of the Israeli army round Beirut which may be similar to the views expressed by the Labour alignment—the main Opposition parties—in Israel? Is he aware that the majority of right hon. and hon. Members regard the sufferings of Lebanese men, women and children in Beirut as a serious offence against the principles of Zionism?

The sufferings are great and the evidence of them is accumulating day by day. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's sentiment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits to Nicaragua have been made so far in 1982 by staff of the British embassy in San José; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's ambassador in San Jose has made four visits and members of his staff six visits to Nicaragua so far this year.

In view of the serious economic problems facing Costa Rica, which must impose an extra work load on our ambassador in San Jose, and in view of the growing economic and social importance of developments in Nicaragua for the whole of the region, will the Minister urgently reconsider the opening of a separate embassy in Managua?

I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but I am satisfied that the present arrangements are adequate and that our staff can cover adequately the work load that is placed upon them.

Is the Minister aware that that is an extremely disappointing reply in view of the wholly changed circumstances in Central America over the past few weeks and months? On the few occasions that the ambassador has visited Managua, has he reported to the Government that the Nicaraguans made a constructive response to the invitation by the United States some months ago to enter into a dialogue with that Government? What influence are the Government bringing to bear on the United States to ensure that the talks take place at the high level that was envisaged originally?

We have noted that both sides have expressed a willingness to hold talks. We hope that talks will take place and that they will contribute to an overall relaxation of tension. It must be left to the parties concerned to decide at what level the talks are conducted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether discussions took place with the United States Administration during the visit of the Prime Minister to the United States of America on the possibility of British Armed Forces participating in a peacekeeping force in the Lebanon.

During her visit to the United States my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the situation in Lebanon with the United States Administration and a possible peacekeeping force was mentioned. This possibility is still being discussed by those immediately concerned in the negotiations, but I understand that no conclusions have yet been reached. We have had no request for British participation in such a force.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the American proposal to evacuate the PLO from Beirut requires the consent not only of the PLO and the two Governments most directly concerned, but of the Governments of the countries to which the PLO and their families are to be taken, which may be rather harder to achieve? Does he accept that this initiative must not be confused with the proposal to have a peacekeeping force in the Lebanon, which is distinct from it and likely to be an even more hazardous enterprise?

My hon. Friend is right in what he said in the second part of his supplementary question. There are various proposals, but one of the difficulties, as he said, is that many parties have to give their consent to any one proposal before it can be effective. That is what Mr. Habib is trying to achieve. We support him in what is a difficult task.

Does the Minister agree that one of the difficulties facing the Palestinian Liberation Organisation in considering seriously the American offer to participate in the peacekeeping force is that the Lebanese and Palestinian peoples have been bombed and shelled by the Israelis with weapons that were supplied to them by the Americans? The Palestinians might feel more inclined to consider seriously the American offer if the Americans were immediately to exert more discipline on the Israelis to ensure a ceasefire consistent with the words of the United States President.

The Americans have been doing their best to prevent further fighting and killing in Beirut and its suburbs. The PLO is well aware of that. I hope that the PLO and all concerned will make an effort to make an arrangement which could bring the killing to an end.

Does my right hon. Friend remember that Britain burnt its fingers badly over Palestine 40 years ago? Much as we all sympathise with the dreadful suffering in Lebanon now, will he ensure that the Government think carefully before sending any British forces there?

We would have to be very careful, not least because of our heavy commitments elsewhere.

Is the Minister aware that peacekeeping in Southern Lebanon will be a different process from peacekeeping in Sinai and that, therefore, if any British forces are committed, it must be with clear political authority and guidelines, and that the United Nations is probably the only organisation capable of that? Is the Minister further aware that there would be a need to strengthen the authority of the United Nations peacekeeping force, since no hon. Member would want any British Army, in whatever form, to be treated with the contemptuousness with which the Israeli army treated UNIFIL a month ago?

An international force would have to depend on a clear mandate from the Security Council, which would be difficult to achieve, or on a clear request from the Lebanese Government as the legitimate Government of the territory. Neither is immediately in prospect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on United Kingdom relations with the Republic of South Africa.

We have normal diplomatic relations with South Africa. In this context we continue to attach importance to the early attainment of an internationally recognised settlement in Namibia and to peaceful change in South Africa.

Will my hon. Friend set out the Government's view about the proposed transfer of Ingwavuma from the Republic of South Africa to the Kingdom of Swaziland?

We have no standing in that matter. What is likely to happen following the recent decision of the South African courts seems far from clear.

Will not the attempt by the South African Government to rob the Zulus of part of their homeland be bound to impede the process of peaceful change, to which the Government have just attached importance? Is that not especially so in the light of the fact that Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, the leader of the Zulus and the outstanding leader of those Africans who are free politically to express their views in South Africa, has already warned that he will not seek to dissuade his people from violent resistance to such robbery?

I note without comment what the right hon. Gentleman said. He will appreciate that territorial changes without the free consultation of the inhabitants concerned do not greatly commend themselves to us.

Does my hon. Friend agree that relations between ourselves and Southern Africa would be improved vastly if we renewed sporting contacts and if they were encouraged by the British Government? Does he further agree that as so many sports there are completely racially integrated, the time has come to amend or abolish the Gleneagles agreement?

My hon. Friend will know the origins and scope of the Gleneagles agreement. So long as South African laws and institutions are based on racial discrimination, that must be reflected in their participation in international sport.

What practical progress is being made by the Western contact group on independence for Namibia? Has not the merry-go-round gone on long enough? Is it not time that the Western Powers brought some effective pressure to bear on South Africa to implement the plan which it agreed in principle two years ago?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not recollect that when he last asked that question I told him that it was not our intention to hang about. There has been progress. If the hon. Gentleman has been following the reports, he will know that the Five have made good progress in resolving outstanding issues and that we are intensifying informal consultations with the parties concerned. A fresh series of meetings started in New York yesterday. I hope that they will move to a successful conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, if he will publish a White Paper on the implications for foreign policy of the events in the Falkland Islands.

My right hon. Friend has no such plans at present.

Does the Minister accept that that does not surprise me? Surely the Government cannot persist for too long with the posture of appearing to consider that the position in the Falklands can be status quo ante? Should we not have an assessment of our relations with the Americas as a whole, and in particular have regard to the United States assistance in maintaining freedom in the Falklands, if we are to be there for any time at all?

Judging by the hon. Gentleman's preliminary remarks, I think that he understands the problem. Certainly what he said is likely to be true in the longer term. If there is to be a peaceful and secure settlement, it must involve the States with interests in that part of the South Atlantic. At some stage we shall want to move in that direction. I am not saying that our intention is to put sovereignty on the negotiating table. That apart, obviously we want to do our utmost to restore and improve still further our relations with other countries in South America. That is in hand.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the foreign policy implications of the Falkland Islands? As some people occasionally refer to the position in other British colonies as being identical to that in the Falklands, will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to make it clear that in regard to Hong Kong we have the best possible relations with the Peoples Republic of China? Does he agree that it is a false analogy to compare the position in Hong Kong with that in the Falkland Islands?

My hon. Friend is right, as usual.

Since Ministers are so certain about what they call the undoubted rock-solid British claim to the Falkland Islands, why has it taken three weeks to give a substantive answer to the courteous letter that I wrote to the Foreign Secretary asking what Foreign Office lawyers have done since 1910 when they asked Gaston de Bernhardt of the Foreign Office research department to provide a memorandum on the legal sovereignty of the Falkland Islands? If the Government are so sure, could not the reply be sent quickly?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not received the letter that I wrote to him yesterday explaining that these are complicated matters. We have somewhat better things to do than to go back to 1910 to answer letters from the hon. Gentleman. He must wait his turn while we deal with more important matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the efforts being made by the Western Powers, through the good offices of Mr. Habib, to strengthen the authority of the Lebanese Government and bring about the withdrawal of external armed forces from Lebanon.

It is clearly important to establish an effective and broadly representative central Government in Lebanon. In their statement of 29 June the Ten recognised that a final peace in Lebanon requires the withdrawal of all foreign forces, except those which may be authorised by a legitimate Lebanese Government. The Ten committed themselves to support all efforts in that direction, and that is what we are doing.

In the interests of the closest relations with our American allies, will my right hon. Friend clarify something that was not abundantly clear from his earlier answer? Do the British Government agree with and support President Reagan's offer to evacuate the PLO and send American troops there?

There is a proposal, which has not yet been agreed by all concerned. It is a complicated proposal. It is not sensible to comment from here on a confused situation in which we are neither directly concerned nor prime actors.

In the confusion, it is far from clear what status the proposal reported in the newspapers has in relation to the American Government. Is the Minister aware that there seems to be opposition among many members of the Cabinet, and certainly among members of the Congress and Senate, whose authority would be required? Will the Minister assure the House that the British Government would impose the same conditions as the French Government, as set out in a statement by the Quai d'Orsay yesterday, that such a force would have to be invited by the Lebanese Government, that it would have to be within the framework of the United Nations and that it would require the support of all the parties concerned?

As I said in answer to a previous question, we have not been approached to participate in such a force. Therefore, I do not think that the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman arise for consideration by the British Government.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the Government do not wish to underpin the United States in their apparent effort wholly and uncritically to back the foreign policy objectives of the Israeli Government, as British public opinion believes that many innocent civilians are suffering unnecessarily out of all proportion to the understandable security policy objectives of Israel?

The suffering inflicted by the Israeli invasion is probably greater than is realised in Britain. The United States is trying to bring the fighting and slaughter to an end. It must be supported in that.

Would it be easier for the Government if the Israelis not only withdrew from the Lebanon but ceased to exist in that part of the world?

Of course not. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. Israel has a right to exist in security, but that security will not be assured until the Israelis in turn recognise that the Palestianians have rights and that the continued denial of those rights is one of the reasons for contnued turbulence and suffering.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries, having invaded and occupied other nations' territory, are currently in breach of United Nations resolutions that have been supported by Her Majesty's Government.

Leaving aside Argentina's failure to comply with Security Council resolution 502, there are no mandatory resolutions regarding invasion and occupation of which United Nations members are in breach.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the Government voted at the United Nations against the invasion and occupation by the Soviet Union of Afghanistan, by Vietnam of Cambodia and by Israel of the Lebanon and the West Bank? Will he confirm that that remains the Government's position and that foreign policy will be structured to take account of those circumstances?

My hon. Friend is correct. The United Kingdom Government did act in that way. They were not mandatory resolutions and therefore the countries concerned are not technically in breach of them. The Government's policy remains as my hon. Friend stated it.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Morocco illegally occupied the north-western part of the Western Sahara against the stated wishes of the United Nations? Will the Government consider taking a positive initiative to encourage mediation between Morocco and the Western Sahara so that the dispute can be settled peacefully?

The Government hope that Morocco and her neighbours will resolve that problem amicably. A United Kingdom initiative is not intended at this stage.

Will my hon. Friend note that this month marks the eighth anniversary of the invasion of Cyprus by Turkish forces? Will he confirm that it remains the Government's urgent intention that Cyprus be reunited as one people and that all military forces be removed?

That would be an ideal solution if it could be achieved in a way that was acceptable to the people of Cyprus. In reality, however, one must accept the serious problems involved in trying to achieve that outcome.

In view of the importance of Security Council resolution 502 to Britain's case in the Falkland Islands, what steps are the Government taking to increase the authority of the United Nations so that similar ventures might be prevented by peaceful means rather than by recourse to the self-defence provision of the United Nations charter?

It is highly desirable for countries to observe mandatory United Nations resoulutions. Unfortunately, we must accept that Argentina refused to do so. That is why the United Kingdom had no alternative but to take the action that she did.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom subjects have been arrested in Spain since the commencement of the World Cup.

Between 13 June and 6 July, 111 United Kingdom citizens were arrested in Spain. All but 11 were released shortly afterwards. Only two of those still in custody appear to have travelled to Spain to attend World Cup football matches.

Has the hon. Gentleman seen press reports of British citizens who are in Spain, some for the World Cup and others on ordinary family holidays, being attacked and harassed by groups of young Spaniards without receiving police protection? Have the Government made any representations to the Spanish authorities? If so, what replies have been received?

We have seen those reports and are worried by them. Her Majesty's ambassador in Madrid is asking the Spanish authorities for further information about the incidents. The deputy mayor of Madrid, who is responsible for police matters in the city of Madrid, has initiated an inquiry into the incidents. He has expressed his anxiety at the reports that he has received. There is no doubt that the Spanish authorities are equally worried about the incidents in question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many people will have been horrified by the scenes shown on television recently of Spanish police officers making apparently vicious and unprovoked truncheon attacks on football fans? Will he ensure that the film that was taken by the BBC and ITV can, if necessary, be made available to the Spanish authorities to carry out an investigation into the disgraceful episode?

We shall do what we can to assist the Spanish authorities with their inquiries. Not only do the Government regard the events with grave concern, but there is every indication that the Spanish authorities are also worried about what may have happened.

What were the objects, and what have been the results of, the official visit of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to Madrid?

My right hon. Friend visited Madrid more in a personal capacity. He appears to have found his visit enjoyable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to have completed his consideration of whether the United Kingdom should ratify the United Nations convention on the elimination of discrimination against women.

We expect to be able to take a decision in respect of the United Kingdom soon. If it is confirmed that we can ratify in respect of the United Kingdom, it will then be necessary to consult the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and the dependent territories to establish whether they would wish our ratification of the convention to apply to them.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that reply is similar to the one that was given in another place about five months ago? Is he further aware that we are now eight-tenths of the way through the United Nations decade for women and that 39 member States have already signed the convention? In view of the extensive discrimination against women that still exists in Britain, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is of the utmost importance that it be signed as soon as possible?

The Government would like to make all due progress in the matter. The hon. Lady must appreciate that the original convention was drafted with some haste and that that has led to additional problems in our consideration of its terms for ratification purposes. Few European countries, indeed none of our Community partners, have yet felt able to ratify it.

Since the hon. Lady succeeded in being elected to the House without Britain having ratified the convention, why should we now want to sign it?

Pathetic!

Irrespective of the hon. Lady's achievement in breaking through some of the traditional examples of discrimination, there is a school of thought that not all ladies have such complete freedom. That is what those who advanced the convention had in mind. We wish to take into account the legal implications of the convention for the United Kingdom before deciding whether ratification would be appropriate.

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

Her Majesty's Government deplore the continuing failure of the Polish authorities to live up to their declared intention to return to the path of renewal and reform. We shall continue to urge the Polish Government to lift martial law, release all those in detention and restore a dialogue with the Church and Solidarity. In the absence of any real progress towards those objectives, our present measures in respect of Poland must remain in force.

Does my hon. Friend agree that we tend to forget Lech Walesa and the 2,000 Solidarity leaders who have been in prison since last December at the Kremlin's behest? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that no concluding documents of the Helsinki conference at Madrid will be signed until those people are released?

Far from the British Government and other Western countries forgetting the detainees, we have made their release, and that of Lech Walesa, one of our principal requirements if the Polish and Soviet Union Governments wish for a return to normalisation of our relations with Poland. Events in Poland will be an important consideration when trying to achieve an agreement at the Madrid conference.

In the light of the understandable anxiety about the Polish authorities' unwillingness to move towards ending martial law, what is the state of negotiations about rescheduling Polish debts?

The commercial banks are now negotiating with the Polish authorities. Western nations have said that they do not intend to initiate negotiations with Poland about rescheduling debts. That remains our policy.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been reports that some members of Solidarity have been taken involuntarily out of Poland? Will he make inquiries about that, as the people concerned may have connections in this country?

I have heard suggestions to that effect, although we have not yet been able to confirm the rumours. Certainly any movement of detainees to other countries, or attempts to put pressure on them to emigrate from Poland, would be viewed by the Government as matters to be condemned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will ensure that the Council of Ministers considers the report by the EEC Court of Auditors concerning the expenses of Members of the EEC Assembly.

The report was addressed to the European Parliament, as the Parliament administers its own budget. The President of the Parliament has announced his intention to correct any irregularities identified in the report. I hope and believe that he will.

As British taxpayers' money is involved in paying for the EEC, what action are British Ministers taking to check the disreputable financial practices of some Members of the Assembly, which are discrediting the entire institution?

That is a matter for the European Parliament, and the President is obviously active in seeking to clear it up. The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the real sanction in this matter is not the views of Ministers but the views of the electorate. That is probably the more powerful sanction.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that those Assembly people receive an allowance of £19,000 per year for their secretaries and an allowance of 35p per mile for travelling around their constituencies? If that is so, is there any need for fiddling?

I cannot answer for the figures for the allowance, as they are fixed by the European Parliament itself. Salaries are a matter for the Government and therefore for this House and, as my hon. Friend knows, the salaries are the same as our own.

Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that some so-called MEPs are likely to lose £4,500 per year under the new proposals, and quite rightly so, and that, at the same time as arguing about their financial position, they agreed by 257 votes to 37 that the powers of the organisation should be increased and that it should supposedly be made into a proper Parliament? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that at all stages the Government will oppose any propositions of that kind?

I gave the hon. Gentleman that assurance in the debate on the powers of the Parliament and related matters about a week ago.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he proposes any new initiatives within the European Economic Community to protect the United Kingdom's economic and political interests.

We intend to identify and pursue all sensible opportunities to advance our economic and political interests through proposals in the Community.

Will my right hon. Friend press for the location of EEC institutions in the United Kingdom in the coming years and will he suggest which ones they might be?

Not without notice, but if sensible proposals—I stress the word "sensible"—for new Community policies are put forward it is important that there should be proper distribution of benefits in terms of siting.

Will the Minister impress upon the Community how anxious we are to attract the Datsun project to this country? Does he agree that it would be far better to have a Japanese car plant in South Wales, for example, bringing its expertise to our motor industry as well as providing many thousands of jobs, than for our roads to continue to be flooded with the Volkswagens, Renaults and Fiats, which have done so much to undermine our own industry?

I note the hon. Gentleman's point about the Nissan project, but I think that it is essentially a matter for the Japanese rather than for the Community.

Reverting to the installation of EEC institutions, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the siting of the EEC copyright office in the Greater Manchester area?

Yes, Sir.

Do the Government intend to deny the EEC institutions any proposals that they might have to extend their sources of new revenue?

We hold at present to the belief that it would be wrong to enlarge the 1 per cent. limit on VAT. As the whole question of own resources is not immediately or imminently on the Community agenda, I had better not add to what I have said.

Does the Minister agree that the budget issue is still outstanding, that the CAP has not been fundamentally changed and that no moves have been made towards a looser and wider Europe? Would not the best initiative for the Government be to begin the process of getting Britain out of the Common Market at the earliest possible moment?

I think that that would be a thoroughly negative and destructive step, and I note that the hon. Gentleman's colleagues are increasingly sceptical about it.

Which ones?

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made an interesting statement in the last few days.

He was not speaking for the party.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will make it their policy not to apply any future decision taken by European. Economic Community Ministers where the unanimity rule under the terms of the Luxembourg compromise is breached.

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 22 June, the discussion by. Foreign Ministers on 20 June showed that five member States support the view that decisions should be deferred where a member State considers its important national interests to be at stake My right hon. Friend has made very clear how serious it would be if this practice were not applied in future, as it had been up to 18 May. We shall have to see how things go.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that a number of critical negotiations are currently taking place, not least those relating to our fisheries and to the common fisheries policy? Is it good enough to have this indecision, which might lead to the same kind of scandalous decision as was taken at the Agriculture Ministers' meeting being taken at many other more critical meetings in the future? Will he give attention to the problem and see whether it can be straightened out?

Of course we must keep an eye on it, but the position is that the Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to differ, with five States on one side of the argument and one on the other. The present position is that five States now agree broadly with our interpretation and five do not, so the position is not very different from what it was before.

As the Minister has now said that the Luxembourg arrangement was an agreement to differ, are not the terms on which the referendum was conducted in 1975, and on which he and his hon. Friends campaigned, shown to be false in relation to the claim about the veto?

What was said by different Governments about the Luxembourg compromise was truthful namely, that it was the arrangement by which the Community actually took its decisions. The hon. Gentleman will accept that. That convention broke down on 18 May. We believe that it is very important that it should be restored to proper working. What counts is what actually happens in the taking of decisions in the Community from now on.

Will the Government use the unanimity rule or convention to maintain the right of New Zealand to export to the United Kingdom?

This matter will be the subject of important discussions starting in the autumn. I note the Commission's recent proposal. This is certainly a matter on which there should be no doubt, and I believe that there is no doubt on the part of our New Zealand friends about our determination to defend their interests.

Will the Government call off the current negotiations on a common fisheries policy, because if the Luxembourg compromise is not operating we shall have no chance at all of any kind of settlement? Many of us believe that it will be a sell-out in any case, but does the Minister agree that if the country with the fish cannot defend itself in any way the position will be utterly hopeless?

The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that in recent weeks we have made substantial progress towards a settlement of this enormously difficult and important subject, which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, I understand, the spokesmen for the industry, think would be satisfactory. One member State, Denmark, is opposed to the settlement. We hope that the next Fisheries Council, to be held under the Danish Presidency, will produce decisive progress.

I accept that the Luxembourg compromise was a convention, but does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the vital part that it played in the country's decision to join the EEC? In the light of that, will the Minister accept his hon. Friend's very good suggestion that the British Government should make it clear that we will not implement anything that is passed when the Luxembourg compromise is overruled?

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has made perfectly clear our belief as to how future decisions of the Community should be taken—that is, on the basis of the convention that operated without exception until 18 May. So far that has not been breached again and, as I have said, what counts is how decisions are taken in future. We have left our European partners in no doubt about the seriousness of the issue.

Can my right hon. Friend give the Government's views on the proposals of the European Parliament to give large sums of money to political parties, including parties in this country, to fight elections—

Order. That is another question altogether, different from the one that we are dealing with. [Interruption.] It is a different question from the one on the Order Paper, which we can all read.

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.

I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Thursday 1 July about the European Council. Foreign Ministers of the Ten also met in political co-operation on 9 and 21 June. Recent events show how important foreign policy co-operation now is for the member States of the Community.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is giving the highest possible priority to the creation of a common EEC foreign policy?

The Ten Governments retain sovereignty on foreign policy matters and I believe that they wish to do so in future. More and more common positions on individual issues are reached by consensus, and that increases the influence that each country has in the rest of the world.

Does the Minister agree that the conflict in the Middle East offers the Government an ideal opportunity to forge that common policy arrangement? Despite his reply to me recently in a written answer about the Middle East, will he refer the matter back to the Ten and seek an initiative so that we can enter Ramallah prison to ascertain the extent of the maltreatment of the Palestinian people there by the Israeli authorities?

In the past few weeks the Ten have taken up a whole range of humanitarian questions with the Israeli Government—getting aid through, the treatment of prisoners and so on. In each case we must judge whether approaches are likely to be successful.

Will my right hon. Friend make absolutely clear whether the Government believe in a Common Market foreign policy—or would he prefer to make it clear that the Government foresee a separate British voice speaking in the councils of the world and that British foreign policy will never be articulated by a Community spokesman based on a Community compromise? —

I have already said that the Government—in common with all member States—retain their sovereignty to speak their mind on foreign policy matters. Increasingly we find that, to be effective, it is useful to reach agreement within the Ten and speak with one voice.

Does the Minister recognise that political co-operation is not the same as a common foreign policy? The Minister is in favour of political co-operation, like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, but most hon. Members are not in favour of a common foreign policy.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong if he believes that the one would survive without the other.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in pursuit of his policy to achieve any reforms within the European Economic Community.

There has been a reduction in the CAP's share of Community expenditure and an increase in the United Kingdom's receipts from CAP expenditure. We have reached agreement with the Parliament on the classification of expenditure. We are making some progress with our efforts to remove barriers to trade in the Community's internal market for goods and services, including insurance, and also in the negotiations for a common fisheries policy. We have secured substantial refunds of the United Kingdom net contribution, and decisions on future arrangements should be taken by the end of November. There is much still to be done in these and other areas.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that full answer. I accept the Treasury diktat that there can be no increase in the 1 per cent. contribution, even though an increase would be to the net benefit of the United Kingdom. However, will my right hon. Friend consult his colleagues in other Departments on the proposal put forward by the European Commission for a revision in budget contributions—notably for some kind of tax on imported sources of energy? Will he also have consultations regarding a more progressive system for applying VAT contributions? Both proposals would clearly be in the interests of the United Kingdom.

We have noted these ideas, which have been going the rounds for some considerable time, but they are not specific proposals and I do not wish to pronounce on them today.

One of the reforms mentioned in a previous answer was a common foreign policy. Will the Minister put details of the common foreign policy in the Library, as he is unable to enunciate them in the House?

There is not a common foreign policy. We retain our sovereignty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]. For the third time, we retain our sovereignty to make our own foreign policy decisions, but we increasingly seek cooperation to make our foreign policy more effective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most urgent reform needed within the Community is to persuade other member Governments to comply with their obligations under the Treaty of Rome? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the total non-compliance by Germany, Italy and France with the insurance aspects of free trade? Does he realise that our insurers are being obstructed at every stage in those countries?

It is certainly true that progress on insurance has been disappointingly slow. A directive on non-life insurance co-operation was discussed six times by the Finance Council last year, and again last month. It is very much in Britain's interests that the discussions should succeed and we shall pursue them energetically.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a real answer to the question on foreign policy? Was it the answer given to his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) earlier, or the answer that he has just given? Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear assurance that, irrespective of political co-operation—I am not opposed to that in Europe—Britain will determine its own foreign policy, in its own interests and on behalf of the British people?

I have given that assurance three times and I am willing to give it for the fourth time.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that progress is now being made which will ensure that voting arrangements within the European Economic Community will suffice to protect vital interests in future.

When the Foreign Ministers discussed this question on 20 June, member States supported the principle that decisions should be deferred where a member State considers that its important national interests are at stake. In the light of this discussion, he Government expect that the practice that the Community has followed with one exception since 1966 will continue to operate.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, provided a satisfactory definition of "vital national interest" can be agreed, this country continues to have more to gain from majority voting—not least in the circumstances advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) a moment ago—than it can by insisting on all decisions being made unanimously?

There are occasions when, without any controversy, decisions have been taken by majority voting. However, my hon. Friend will no doubt agree that a community of nation States cannot effectively work except on the basis that where a member State believes that important national interests are involved it should have the right to say that a decision must be deferred.

Is it not the position that this country entered the Common Market following a referendum decided on the basis that a veto would exist if the country's national interests were at stake? That convention has been broken and, therefore, there has been a breach of the constitution. If that breach cannot be repaired, does the Minister agree that the only way that we can be honest with the people is to give them the opportunity to get out of the Common Market?

If the Opposition make that an election issue, it will be an election issue. That is up to the Opposition. The statement of the convention was accurately made at that time, and it applied until 18 May. We should have liked to see a clear-cut statement on the future, but we have achieved an agreement to differ—essentially the same as the Luxembourg compromise. We believe that it is on that basis that future decisions should be taken.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that we have rot been overruled again since the farm price issue does not mean that the problem has not arisen again, as we may have been more reluctant to pursue our interests uncompromisingly because we were afraid of being overruled?

I do not think that that is so. In fact, I cannot think of any example where that could even be suggested.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you know of any other hon. Member who during the last hour, has failed to catch your eye on seven different questions?

I think that only one other hon. Member rose in his place on seven questions.