asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Angola.

Not at present, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that my constituent, Colin Evans, has already served a seven-year sentence there and so have the constituents of a number of hon. Members? Is he further aware that they have another 18 years to serve and that they could very easily become forgotten men? Will the Foreign Secretary consider doing what was successfully done by one of his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he visited Uganda, or will he at least try some other positive initiative to bring these men home?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not seeking to draw a parallel between the present Angolan Government and the Government of General Amin. While I fully appreciate his concern for his constituent, I can assure him we are in touch with the Angolan Government at the highest levels. At the same time, I hope that neither he nor the House will want me to say anything that might jeopardise the chances of the prisoners' release. We should also remember what the Angolan people have suffered, and continue to suffer, since 1976 and understand that an act of clemency which is a decision entirely for the Angolan Government, may still be far from easy in such circumstances.

My hon. Friend will be aware that one of my constituents, Mr. Malcolm Wright, is also imprisoned in Angola. Is one of the considerations that the Angolan Government will take into account whether there is any current or likely British mercenary activity in that area? Can my hon. Friend shed some light on that, which might reassure the Angola Government so as to enable them to act on a clemency appeal?

I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern for his constituent. With regard to his point about mercenaries, I have no evidence to suggest that any British mercenaries may have been or are likely to be recruited for any purpose against the Angola Government. If my hon. Friend or anyone else has any information to that effect I hope that they will let me know so that we can take appropriate legal action against those involved.

Will the Minister assure the Angolan Government that no pressure will be brought to bear on them to dispense with military support from Cuba until and unless there has been a complete withdrawal of South African forces, both from Angolan territory, where they are unlawfully operating, and from Namibia?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands that our anxiety in this matter as a member of the Contact Group of Five is to promote a settlement. We shall do everything we possibly can to achieve that end.

With regard to mercenaries, are not the Cubans now the mercenaries in Angola? Is not their withdrawal the key to an easement of the conflict which affects Angola, Namibia and South Africa? Will Her Majesty's Government do all that they can to bring that about? Perhaps Mr. Andropov might be asked to use his influence?

I do not know what influence Mr. Andropov may have over the Cubans at this moment. I think that my hon. Friend is right to suggest that the presence of Cubans in any part of Africa is an unhelpful influence, but we must recall that they are in Angola at the invitation of the Angolan Government. Whether they withdraw is a matter for that Government.

Does the Minister appreciate that his reply is regarded by the Opposition as extremely helpful? Is it not a fact that the concept of linkage or parallelism was not conceived in the debates and discussions that took place within the United Nations and among the contact States until very recently, although Cuban forces had been in Angola for some considerable time even then? Will the hon. Gentleman make it abundantly plain that the Government dissociate themselves entirely from the concept of linkage or parallelism?

I do not think that it would be helpful for me to respond to the hon. Gentleman's last request. However, it must be an objective to resolve the problem altogether and comprehensively. If the Namibia question offers an opportunity for the wider resolution of problems in Southern Africa, it will be a great mistake to ignore the opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the discussions in Peking about the future of Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Following the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to China in September, meetings to discuss the future of Hong Kong have begun through diplomatic channels in Peking and are continuing. For reasons that will be obvious to hon. Members, the content of these meetings must remain confidential. Their agreed aim is the maintenance of the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will he confirm that an urgent objective in the talks must be the restoration of international confidence in Hong Kong and in its currency?

We wish to maintain confidence in Hong Kong and prepare the way for maintaining it beyond 1997 when the lease of the New Territories ends.

Does my right hon. Friend understand the sense of insecurity felt in Hong Kong because it is not possible to divulge anything so far about the process of the discussions? In that context, has consideration yet been given to the arrangements for consulting the people of Hong Kong on the outcome of the discussions?

International negotiations are not normally brought to a successful conclusion unless they have been conducted in confidentiality. I think that the people of Hong Kong understand that. We are aware of their anxiety about the future. What matters is that our talks with the Chinese should be brought to a successful conclusion. We are closely in touch with the Government and other important figures in Hong Kong, and I wish to make it clear that the views of the people of Hong Kong will be taken fully into account in our talks with the Chinese.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of the uncertainty in Hong Kong is caused by the people of the colony who have deluded themselves into believing that there will be a quick and easy answer to the problem? We all hope and intend to do our best to ensure that a solution is arrived at as quickly as possible, but will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done that will be detrimental or harmful to our relations with the People's Republic, which in the long run are more important to the House and the country than our relations with Hong Kong?

We are seeking to achieve the continuation of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, which is important to the people of Hong Kong and to China. It is important also that the talks in which we are engaged should produce a successful result, and Her Majesty's Government are doing everything possible to that end.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether nuclear weapons were discussed at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 9 and 10 December which he attended.

Yes. Nuclear arms control was a major subject of discussion at the North Atlantic Council, as I explained in the debate on 15 December.

What is wrong with Mr. Andropov's offer that Soviet missiles in Europe should not exceed those of Britain and France as at present deployed? Secondly, does today's refusal even to negotiate that offer mean that cruise missiles are bound to come and that the nuclear arms race will finally get out of control, or will it need a change of Government in Westminster to stop that?

The understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union on the INF talks is that of parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Andropov's speech yesterday, which is the first public statement of the Soviet Union's position. Full details of it are not yet available, but I have no doubt that they will be when negotiations resume in Geneva at the end of January. The difference between the Soviet Union and the West—between the Soviet Union and the United States—is in the equation and nature of the nuclear balance. It seems vital that the parties concerned agree upon the facts before they can make progress.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Andropov' proposals come close to inviting Britain to trade his apple for our orchard? Will he insist on the British Government rejecting all ideas of unilateral disarmament when Mr. Andropov himself has entirely ruled out such an absurd policy for his own country?

We have always rejected the notion of unilateral disarmament precisely because it would throw away our defences and bring arms control no nearer. The only reason why the Russians are at the negotiating table is the decision that we took in NATO three years ago. That is why they are there discussing the possibilities of a reduction. My hon. Friend has referred to some of the obvious weaknesses in the plan that has been put forward. However, it is for the negotiators to come to their conclusions when the next round begins.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us welcomed his recognition that Mr. Andropov's proposals were a step forward? His readiness to negotiate on them is a welcome contrast to the complete rejection of the proposals by President Reagan, which many of us deeply deplore. As the right hon. Gentleman said on television last night that the West must examine Mr. Andropov's proposals as part of what he called the "overall balance of security", how can he refuse to take account of French and British nuclear forces as part of the overall balance of security? Is he not aware that the planned Trident force, which he supports, would have the same destructive power as the entire Soviet SS20 force? Does he really expect the Soviet Union to ignore it? If he expects the Soviet Union to ignore our forces, why is he planning to spend £10,000 million on them with the aim of influencing Soviet policy?

Order. This is a very long question. There are certain constraints on occupants of the Front Benches, even at Christmas time.

It may be a long question, Mr. Speaker, but it is extremely apposite. The reception that it has had has shown that it is meaningful to both sides of the House.

I hope that the Christmas spirit descends on the right hon. Gentleman in the near future. I said to Mr. Brunson yesterday that if the suggestion that had been made by Mr. Andropov meant that in principle the Soviet Union was prepared to reduce SS20s, that would seem to be a small step in the right direction. As for my readiness to negotiate, I made it clear in last week's debate that the ideas that had been floated were only informal at this stage. Mr. Andropov spoke publicly of them yesterday. When negotiations recommence at the end of January, full details will be available. However, from what we know already there are shortcomings in the proposals. It is right to point them out. I have already said that we must examine them with the greatest care.

Oh, come on.

Submarine-launched missiles are excluded by both sides. It is no use the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) shouting about it. The other point is that the negotiations are about parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. In any case, our Polaris nuclear force is essentially strategic. For all those reasons, the British system is not part of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe about the detained air force officers and the tourists who were abducted.

As my noble Friend explained in another place on 18 November, the detained air force men are all Zimbabwean citizens and so Her Majesty's Government are not entitled to make formal representations on their behalf. We have, however, repeatedly expressed our concern to the Zimbabwean authorities about the reports that some of the detained men have been ill treated. We have continued to urge that they be brought to trial soon.

Can the Minister say nothing about where the tourists may be or whether we have been asked to help in any way to discover where they are? Is he aware, for example, that they are alleged to be in a deserted part of Botswana? With regard to the air force officers, in view of the good relations with Zimbabwe to which he referred, is it possible categorically to deny that torture took place and to say when they may be brought to trial?

With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I hope that he will understand that I can make no such categorical denial, but I have no reason to suppose that, if the air force officers were ill treated, it was an act of policy carried out on behalf of the Zimbabwean Government. I have no knowledge of the tourists' whereabouts. I do not think that there is anything that I can usefully add to what I have said except that I am quite sure that the Zimbabwean authorities are approaching methodically and systematically the task of locating them.

Has my hon. Friend instructed our high commissioner in Zimbabwe to be in contact with Mr. Ian Smith since his recent loss of passport and the seizure of his papers? Has my hon. Friend any comment to make?

There is no need for our high commissioner to be instructed to contact Mr. Ian Smith, and I have no further comment to make.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make further representations to the Soviet leadership urging them to grant an amnesty to Anatoly Shcharansky and to enable him to join his wife in Israel.

My right hon. Friend and I have both raised Mr. Shcharansky's plight with the Soviet ambassador recently and my right hon. Friend also took it up personally with the Soviet Foreign Minister in New York at the end of September. The United Kingdom delegation to the CSCE review meeting at Madrid has also raised Mr. Shcharansky's case several times.

Although I am grateful for the Minister's reply and the Government's involvement in trying to help thisunfortunate man, I assume that my hon. Friend is aware that Mr. Shcharansky has now been on hunger strike for several months and that basic human rights are being denied to his family with regard to knowing of his condition and his whereabouts? Can further representations be made, on the ground, that basic human rights are being denied?

It is true that Mr. Shcharansky has been on hunger strike since 27 September because of the Soviet authorities' refusal to allow him to have any contact with his family. That shows the severe way in which the Soviet authorities are treating him and the urgent need for everyone to do all that they can to impress on the Soviet Union that progress at Madrid and elsewhere depends on respecting basic human rights.

Is the Minister aware that the all-party parliamentary committee for the release of Soviet Jewry has awarded its annual Henry Moore award this year to Mr. Shcharansky? Is he aware that representations have constantly been made on his behalf and that they have fallen on utterly deaf ears in the Soviet Union? Will the Minister please renew his representations on behalf of us all?

Unfortunately, Mr. Shcharansky's case is only one of many thousands in the Soviet Union. The number of Soviet Jews being permitted to leave the Soviet Union this year is likely to be fewer than 3,000. That represents a substantial change of policy by the Soviet Government.

Will my hon. Friend also urge Mr. Begin and Mr. Sharon to release some thousands of Palestinians and Lebanese from—

Order. That is a question for the Order Paper. It does not arise on this question, which relates to the Soviet Union.

With regard to Mr. Shcharansky—

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman could not have heard what I said. His question was not related to the one on the Order Paper.

May I relate my question to Mr. Shcharansky, Mr. Speaker? If he is to go to Israel, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there are many Palestinians who would also like to go there?

The important thing at this stage is to try to do whatever we can to allow Mr. Shcharansky to go to whichever country he chooses to live in.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome his assurance that constant representations are being made on behalf of Mr. Scharansky and that we hope they will bear fruit? When those representations are being made, will he bear in mind the Prime Minister's offer of asylum for the Vashchenco and Chmyknalov families in the American embassy in Moscow? Will he ensure that the British delegation at the CSCE review meeting at Madrid also bears their case in mind?

Our delegation in Madrid is raising a substantial number of cases. They all point to the Soviet Union's refusal to honour its obligations under the original Helsinki agreement. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the prospect for peace in the Middle East.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect on Her Majesty's Government's policy in the Middle East the rejection by the Palestine Liberation Organisation of President Reagan's plan will have.

Recent political initiatives, particularly the proposals put forward by President Reagan, have created a critically important opportunity for progress towards a comprehensive Arab-Israel settlement. We believe it is vital that this opportunity is seized. We are continuing to urge all the parties concerned, including the PLO, to act accordingly and begin the peacekeeping process in a realistic and constructive spirit. The statement from the Palestine Central Council meeting in Damascus did not amount to a rejection by the PLO of President Reagan's initiative. In Lebananon we are striving to achieve the early withdrawal of all foreign forces.

In pursuance of the peace process in the Middle East, can the Foreign Secretary reconcile his promise to the House in his statement of 20 October, when he said that the Middle East should become a demilitarised zone, with the Government's intention to send a floating arms exhibition into the area in 1983?

Every country is entitled to its security. The exhibition is going to the Gulf, where there are many anxieties arising out of the Iran-Iraq war, to mention just one example. Naturally there is interest in purchasing weapons. In many cases the interest is in British weapons.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Venice declaration, which was engineered by his predecessor, Lord Carrington, which called for the PLO to be included in the peace negotiations? Does he recall also that the PLO immediately rejected that proposal on the ground that it felt that its problems could be solved not by negotiation but by warfare? Allying that with a recent statement of the Palestine Central Council, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we are getting into a silly circumstance when the whole world, except the PLO itself, is calling for the PLO to be brought into negotiations?

We want everyone to come into the negotiations, including Israel, which, at the moment, is not prepared to negotiate on the basis of the Reagan plan. We hope Israel will change its mind. On the whole, Arab countries have shown a more cohesive attitude to the plan since the Fez summit. I hope that they are prepared to take part in such negotiations. We have taken a view of the PLO's attitude to terrorism and to Israel, but we have said that it must be associated with the negotiations. That has been made clear through our membership of the Ten in Europe and through our ordinary contact with the PLO direct. With regard to the Arab League delegation, I hope that that visit will take place later.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when he visits the Middle East early in January the Arab leaders may be asking him some anxious questions about this country's commitment to the peacemaking process in the light of our postponement so far of the Arab League delegation visit? Is he aware that many people will think that there is an inconsistency in our attitude towards the delegation because it contains a PLO member? We understand that my right hon. Friend himself and other Foreign Office Ministers are willing to receive the PLO spokesman, while other parts of the Government are not.

There is no country in the Middle East or the world that does not know that Her Majesty's Government are extremely keen to get the peacemaking process going on the basis of the Reagan plan. No one is in the slightest doubt about that. We regret very much that following an understanding that the Arab League delegation would not include a PLO representative, the representative was included at the last minute. I am sorry that, for that reason, the visit did not take place when planned. We are, however, in touch with all the member countries and hope that the visit will be reinstated in due course.

How can the right hon. Gentleman say that he wants the PLO to adopt a constructive attitude towards peace negotiations when, as a result of the bungling and incompetent interference of the Prime Minister in the process, he is not allowed to talk to an Arab League delegation that includes a representative of the PLO? This is despite the fact that some of his Ministers have met PLO representatives in the past and also the fact that President Mitterrand, a leading supporter of the Israeli State, has met the same delegation, including a PLO representative? Are we not holding up the peacemaking process by this stupid attitude? When will the right hon. Gentleman invite the delegation? Will he impose any conditions on that delegation? If so, what are those conditions?

There is much merit in consistency. In our attitude to the PLO we have been consistent. I referred to this in a previous answer. There is some sign that the PLO is moving in the direction that we have constantly urged. We hope that it will pursue its aspirations in future by political and peaceful means. Far from being inconsistent, our position is entirely logical. Every member country knows of our enthusiasm for the peacemaking process. There is much sense in the Government sticking to their attitude on the matter. We want to see the negotiations start. I regret that there has been such a long delay before that has happened.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the substantial progress made in talks between King Hussein and Mr. Arafat? Will he now try to reassure the Palestinians about their understandable anxieties regarding the fate of their compatriots in Lebanon? Has my right hon. Friend also noted that the only outright rejection of the Reagan proposals comes from Mr. Begin and the Israeli Government? What does he propose to do to bring pressure to bear to try to change this inflexible and provocative attitude?

We have made representations direct to Israel. Representations have been made on behalf of the Ten by the President, who visited Tel Aviv a few weeks ago. I have also made our view plain to Mr. Schultz on a number of occasions. It is very probable that the United States is putting, and will put, pressure on Israel. We have also done everything possible to encourage the Arab countries to take part in the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to enable the BBC overseas service to broadcast on television and to make the programmes capable of reception in the United Kingdom.

At present the costs of expanding the BBC external services into the television field would be prohibitive and the technical difficulties formidable. It is not the purpose of the external services to broadcast to the United Kingdom.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the overseas service of the BBC is something of which we can be proud? Is he aware that its influence in the world is enormous in relation to its small cost? Is he further aware that, with the coming of satellite television, its audiences will inevitably diminish unless the news and current affairs services at least are also provided on television? Will my hon. Friend reconsider his attitude and make the necessary funds available from his Department?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the BBC overseas service is of high quality, but he must appreciate that any attempt to transmit such services through television as well as radio would require a substantial increase on top of the £70 million at present provided for the service. Such funds are not available, but even if they were there would be a good argument for using them to extend the radio service rather than seek to introduce television.

I think that the Minister has just answered my question, but I should nevertheless like to ask him whether he is aware that many areas of the world are no longer obtaining the good reception of BBC world service broadcasts that was formerly the case? Is he further aware that a great deal of investment is still required to get the radio service right? Will he use his good offices within the Foreign Office to make sure that such investment goes ahead quickly?

We are constantly seeking to improve reception of the world service. A new transmitter was introduced in September, which has ensured far better clarity of reception throughout Western Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-Uruguayan relations.

I am glad to say that we enjoy good relations with Uruguay.

Is the Minister aware of the story published in The Economist in June, and included in reports recently approved by the Western European Union Assembly, that Uruguay offered to evacuate the civilians from the Falkland Islands before the Argentine invasion? Is it not now, or may it not potentially be, a matter of embarrassment for Uruguay if the Foreign Office continues to refuse to offer adequate comment? Will the Minister make it clear that while the Foreign Office may continue to refrain from offering comment or explanation, it would have no objection if Uruguay offered to do so?

It is for the Uruguayan Government to make their own decisions. I have to repeat to the hon. Gentleman what I have already stated in my letter. This matter falls within the terms of reference of the review being conducted by the Franks committee.

Apart from the possibility of widows and relatives visiting graves, is it not a fact that there is no chance of any Uruguayan Government in the foreseeable future providing landing rights for a continuous relationship between Britain and the Falklands?

I believe that the House welcomes the announcement that has been made about the visit by next of kin. I do not think that the House regards the hon. Gentleman as a spokesman for the Uruguayan Government, present or future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contribution Her Majesty's Government hope to make towards helping the Lebanese Government regain its sovereignty over the whole of Lebanon.

As the House knows, we have decided to contribute to the multinational force in Lebanon an armoured reconnaissance unit of about 80 men for three months.

Will the Minister say whether he welcomes recent reports that the Israeli and Lebanese Governments are prepared to discuss a peace package? What efforts are the Government making to ensure that Syrian and Palestinian forces withdraw from the area at the same time as Israeli forces?

I welcome such reports. It is not clear yet what exactly they mean or what they portend. If they are verified, that will be a helpful step. We have recently been in touch with the Government of Syria and with the PLO about the need, as we see it, for all foreign forces to withdraw from Lebanon.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will give a cautious welcome to the decision to dispatch a British contingent to Lebanon? Will he say under whose command the contingent will come? What will be the orders for opening fire? Is it still the intention of the Government to try to change the multinational force into a proper United Nations force?

The British contingent will be under its own British commander. He will work alongside the other commanders of the multinational force in a committee under the auspices of the Lebanese Government. The rules of engagement have not yet been worked out. They will have to ensure that our forces are effectively able to defend themselves. As my hon. Friend knows, the UNIFIL force continues to exist in South Lebanon. We have been persuaded, after discussions with the United States and Lebanese Governments in particular, that it would be sensible if we made a British contribution to the job that the multinational force is doing in the Beirut area. It has certainly helped to restore calm and reassurance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Opposition believe that the world should support the Lebanese Government's attempt to restore their sovereignty over the whole of Lebanese territory? We welcome the decision of the Government to make a contribution to the international peacekeeping force. We also believe that by sending a small operational unit, rather than a training team, the Government have found the best solution to the problem. Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is the intention to withdraw the British unit at the end of three months? Or is there an option to renew the arrangement?

We discussed this with the Lebanese Foreign Minister on his recent successful visit to this country. Our offer, which is for three months, is welcomed by, and acceptable to, the Lebanese Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, for the purpose of discussions with the Government of the People's Republic of China, he has made any assessment of the contribution Hong Kong makes to the economy of the People's Republic.

Hong Kong's contribution to the economy of the People's Republic of China is a significant factor in discussions about its future arrangements. It is difficult to make a full and precise assessment of this contribution, but Chinese leaders have themselves frequently acknowledged Hong Kong's importance to their "four modernisations" programme.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential to the successful outcome of the discussions that the Government of the People's Republic should clearly understand not only that the benefits which they receive from Hong Kong in markets, foreign exchange, and so on, far outweigh any benefit to this country, but that the continuance of Hong Kong and of those benefits depends crucially on maintaining the status of the Hong Kong dollar?

I agree with my hon. Friend on both points. I believe that the people of Hong Kong very much want the arrangement to continue as before. We are doing our best to bring home to the Chinese the importance of the points made by my hon. Friend. Indeed, they are the very elements of the success and prosperity of Hong Kong.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress he has made towards finding a permanent solution to the European Economic Community budget problem in 1983 and beyond.

As instructed by the Foreign Affairs Council on 22 November, the Committee of Permanent Representatives has begun work on the Commission paper on the budget solution. The Council will discuss this again in January.

What timetable does my right hon. Friend propose to set himself for the successful completion of the negotiations?

There is no set timetable. I shall make the best progress that I can. If a conclusion has not been reached by March the matter is likely to appear on the agenda of the European Council, but I hope that we shall make reasonable progress.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about a settlement of the 1983 budget, but the 1982 budget has not yet been settled. If we succeed in obtaining the £500 million refund, will he insist that we are not dictated to on how we should spend it?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Commission has given an absolute assurance about the arrangements agreed at the end of October and we are content to rest on that.

As we have now been waiting 10 years for a permanent budget solution to be found, not to mention reform of the common agricultural policy, will the Government set out in a White Paper the ways in which they believe these difficult objectives may best be achieved?

The initiatives that we take in the Council are well known and much commented on in the press. We shall do our best to make progress with them.

May we be assured that the £500 million owing to us will be handed over not later than the end of March next year?

The Commission has given undertakings to that effect. It has given assurances that the United Kingdom will in no way be worsted as a result of what occurred and will ensure adherence to the agreement reached at the end of October.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what decisions have been taken at the Foreign Affairs Council of the European Community on ways and means of improving commercial relations between Japan and the Community.

The Foreign Affairs Council stressed the urgent need for effective action by the Japanese Government. A number of decisions were taken, including a move to the second stage of the GATT dispute settlement procedure, an extension of import surveillance and a demand for effective and clearly defined restraint of Japanese exports in sensitive sectors. The Commission affirmed its willingness to begin safeguard action for sensitive products in accordance with the appropriate regulation. The full text of the Council's conclusions is available in the Library.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling throughout Europe that trade between European countries and Japan is too much a one-way business? Is he further aware that any and every action that the Council of Ministers can take will have the full support of the British people?

I agree with my hon. Friend about that feeling. I believe that the Foreign Affairs Council made progress—not before time—in getting the European act together, so as to bring effective pressure to bear on the Japanese.

Are the Japanese exercising effective voluntary restraint over the export of motor vehicles to this country? Does the Minister agree that restraint should also be exercised with regard to the import of Common Market vehicles into this country and that the real cause for concern is our massive deficit in manufactured and semi-manufactured goods with the Common Market? What does he intend to do about that?

One-quarter of our total imports from Japan, including cars, are now covered by inter-industry understandings, and I understand that those agreements are respected. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the position with regard to imports from our EC partners is entirely different. I do not understand how he expects us to restrict British customers buying from our partners while expecting our partners to go on buying British.

In view of the astronomical balance of payments deficit between this country and Japan, does my right hon. Friend agree that a time limit should be set for the opening of the Japanese market to British goods and services, and that if Japan has not acted within that time we should take retaliatory action, as the French have done?

I am not sure that the French action will prove particularly effective. My hon. Friend is entirely right, however, in saying that one of the prongs of our policy must be to ensure a proper opening of the Japanese market with the shortest possible delay so that Japan plays a fair part in the international system to which it belongs.

Is the Minister aware that his statement resembles many made to the House in the past decade? Before such a time limit is imposed, as many Members on both sides believe that it must be, will he arrange a meeting with the Japanese, at the highest level, to impress upon them that time is running out for them in their trading and that the operations now being suggested will lead to a spiral of protectionism? Does he agree that top level talks on trade are now urgently necessary?

Certainly there in urgency. Such high level talks have taken place in the past, and no doubt there will be others in 1983.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs within what time scale he expects substantial progress on the initiative for reform of the institutions and policies of the European Economic Community he outlined on 24 November,Official Report, c. 848–49.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in reforming the European Economic Community.

As I told the House on 24 November, I continue to take the initiative in the Council to press for constructive reform and development. I referred, by way of example, to the development of new policies of benefit to Britain and the Community, in particular coal policy, improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy, and a fair solution to the budget problem. The reforms that we are seeking will take time to achieve, but some progress is being made.

As Ministers have repeatedly said that a fundamental reform of the CAP is needed, would it not be helpful to have some outline or explanation of how they believe this can be achieved? Now that EC prices are, on average, more than double world prices and the taxpayers of Europe are spending more than £7 million per day to ensure that Third world countries have food at prices cheaper than our own, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is desperately urgent that the House of Commons should have a rough idea of how the Government believe the CAP should be reformed?

There have been a number of debates over the years about the ways in which the CAP could be reformed, and the Government's position is well known. Clearly, the problem is that there are nine other member States, all with their own different views.

With regard to developing institutions, has the right hon. Gentleman seen press reports that the German Government intend, during their Presidency in the next six months, to put the Genscher-Colombo proposals for European union high on their list of priorities? As there is no mandate from the House for European political unity, will he tell the German Government that the proposals are not on for the United Kingdom?

We know that the German Government hope to make progress with that plan, which has been debated in the House. A number of paragraphs and chapters still have to be agreed, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that before any such agreement is reached the Government will have to be satisfied that our needs are met.

What is the Government's justification these days for still not joining the European monetary system?

Because my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not judged the time ripe.

Did my right hon. Friend note the welcome from all parts of the House yesterday, except from the professional anti-Europeans, to the manner in which our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has handled the incident in the European Parliament? Will he build on this as evidence of the willingness of one European institution to forward the fundamental reform of the workings of the Community?

Yes, Sir.

With regard to the operation of the CAP, has the Secretary of State seen the growing evidence of the tremendous waste and destruction of dairy products, vegetables and fruit, some of which was shown in The Sunday Times Magazine recently? What action will he take to prevent payment for this destruction by the British taxpayer, at the expense of the British consumer?

The creation of agricultural surpluses in the European Community is one of the problems of the CAP. We have made a number of constructive proposals to try to rectify that and we have been one of the foremost in resisting excessive price increases, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is an important matter on which we are negotiating all the time to try to achieve the change that will prevent these surpluses being created.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with progress towards the adoption of common tactics by European Economic Community Governments in international organisations.

Broadly, yes, but we are always looking at ways to improve co-ordination among the Ten. On issues which fall within Community competence the Commission already negotiates on behalf of the European Community as a whole, in accordance with a mandate agreed by the Council of Ministers. On other issues we usually try to co-ordinate among the Ten and with other like-minded countries.

May I invite my right hon. Friend, as I invited the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday, to consider the powerful offer by Mr. Donald Regan, the Secretary to the American Treasury, the other day, that the United States would adopt a more open attitude in its dealings with Europe and the rest of the world? Does my right hon. Friend recall the initiative taken by Ernest Bevin in response to a similar, rather vague offer by General Marshall back in 1947? Will he seize this opportunity to act on behalf of the Community to develop a new programme of expansion of the world economy?

I heard my hon. Friend's question yesterday and the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend. My hon. Friend will have found that reasonably encouraging, and I cannot add to it today.

What is the point in trying to adopt common tactics when the whole strategy is wrong?

That supplementary question is so vague that it is impossible to give a satisfactory answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects will be discussed at the next European Economic Community Council of Ministers meeting.

The usual written forecast of Council business for the month of January is being deposited in the Library of the House. I am arranging for a full statement, elaborating on the forecast, to be published in the Official Report.

No doubt unemployment will also figure somewhere on the agenda. If it does, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that during the years in which Britain has been a member of the Common Market the number of people employed in British manufacturing industry has fallen by 2 million? How does that square with the slogan that dominated the referendum campaign in 1975—"Jobs for the boys"?

The question that the hon. Gentleman and those who like him will have to answer is how unemployment, which is severe and tragic, would be helped by putting at risk the markets on which 43 per cent. of our exports depend.

With regard to the budget issue, will my right hon. Friend undertake to tell our partners in Europe that next year a rebate will not be acceptable and that there is only one forseeable solution—a permanent solution to this probolem, which has been dragging on for years, even if that means force majeure being exerted by the British Government? There are so many vested interests that we may not achieve it otherwise.

I am glad that my hon. Friend agrees with the European Parliament on this issue. The difficulty about the stand that he and the European Parliament take is that it is not realistic to suppose that a long-term settlement would have been achieved at the end of this year in time to make unnecessary the refunds that have been discussed during the last few days. My hon. Friend is right in saying that our objective, and that of the House, is a long-term solution to the problem that will take the place of the reasonably satisfactory three-year agreement, which is now coming to an end.

Meanwhile, has the Minister noticed that the recent restriction on the export of EC butter to the Soviet Union has caused great disappointment and distress to the French Communist millionaire who usually makes large profits out of these transactions?

I note the right hon. Gentleman's point.

Three meetings of the Council of Ministers are planned for January. A fourth is currently under discussion.

The Agriculture Council is expected to meet on 17–18 January. It is likely to consider common agricultural policy pricefixing—first examination—battery hens and certain other veterinary items, including proposals on animal diseases and on personnel responsible for carrying out health inspections.

It is possible that there will be a meeting of the Economic and Finance Council on 17 January. The agenda has not yet been fixed.

The Foreign Affairs Council is due to meet on 24–25 January, when it is expected to discuss the solution to the budget problem for 1983 and later, relations with Japan, the new regional development fund regulation, in particular the question of national quota shares, and ways of reinforcing the Community's steel anti-crisis measures. There will also be further discussion of the EC-Spain 1970 agreement in the light of Commission contacts with the Spaniards. The Council will continue its consideration of the European Parliament's proposals for a common electoral system and may also consider its position in preparation for the planned special EC-ACP joint council on STABEX, and further draft declarations on the accession negotiations for presentation to the Spaniards and to the Portuguese.

Ministers may discuss proposals for progress on the three initial priority areas for completion of the internal market which they endorsed at the December Council. There may also be further discussions of the Genscher-Colombo proposals and of the Community aspects of the various studies on East-West economic relations which are now under consideration in other forums.

The Fisheries Council is expected to meet on 25 January to discuss developments on the common fisheries policy in the light of the 21 December Fisheries Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of his Department concerning the application of article 100, relating to fisheries, of the Treaty of Accession of the United Kingdom to the European Economic Community.

I have overall responsibility for policy towards the European Community, but matters specifically relating to the common fisheries policy are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may I remind him of his hope, expressed on Monday to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, that the Danes would yesterday agree to the fishing arrangements? As they have not, does he agree that article 100 of the Treaty of Accession, for which he is responsible, makes it clear that if no agreement has been reached—and it has not—regulation 2141 of October 1970 applies, and that that gives the right to the Danes to fish up to the beaches of the United Kingdom?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to await the statement to be made by my right hon. Friend.

As this is a desperately important issue affecting the whole future of the British fishing industry, can my right hon. Friend say precisely what the position will be if the Danes go to the European Court and establish this right, which appears to exist in the Treaty? Will the Government make it clear that in no circumstances will they allow fishing up to our beaches?

I agree with my hon. Friend that this is an extremely important matter, but the sensible thing is to ask my hon. Friend to await the statement to be made shortly by my right hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the European Economic Community budget problem.

I have nothing to add to the statement made yesterday by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If the right hon. Gentleman has read that statement, does he not realise that many questions were left unanswered by the Chancellor yesterday? As the sum was not approved by the Assembly—by a large majority—does the Assembly have the final say in the matter? Can it determine the way in which United Kingdom refunds are spent here, and can the Assembly, if it agrees to make the payment, ask for control over United Kingdom refunds? In particular, is the financing of individual projects to be determined by the Assembly?

The Treaty gives the directly elected Parliament powers in relation to Community budgets, including the power to reject the budget when there are important reasons for so doing and to ask the Commission to submit a new draft.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for talks with the new Government of Spain concerning the future of Gibraltar.

I met the Spainish Foreign Minister in Brussels on 10 December and discussed with him the implementation of the 1980 Lisbon agreement. This provides for the lifting of Spanish restrictions on Gibraltar and, at the same time, the start of negotiations aimed at overcoming all the differences between Britain and Spain on Gibraltar. We agreed that officials should meet to consider details with a view to implementation of the agreement in the spring.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the opening of the border by the new Government in Spain needs a response from Britain and some new imaginative ideas, perhaps on economic co-operation, trade and tourism, which show that we are thinking about Gibraltar's long-term future, perhaps involving in the negotiations representatives of the Gibraltarian people themselves?

No, Sir. The partial opening of the border between Spain and Gibraltar was a gesture by the incoming Spanish Government. When we met we agreed that there was nothing further to be said about the matter at this stage, but that we would undertake preliminary discussions with a view to implementing the Lisbon agreement next year. That covers the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware how much we welcome the decision by the new Socialist Government in Spain and the new Prime Minister, Felipe Gonzalez, to reopen the frontier, even partially? Is he further aware that the statement this morning by the Prime Minister of Spain implies a more relaxed attitude on the vexed issue of sovereignty? Will the Government endeavour to build on these constructive and apparently conciliatory attitudes displayed by the Spanish Government?

That is exactly what we are doing.

I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that Spain is more likely to achieve its objective by encouraging the transit of Spanish and British citizens between Spain and Gibraltar. Will the right hon. Gentleman also help by setting up tripartite discussions between Spain, Britain and Morocco, as, clearly, the position of Ceuta is similar to that of Gibraltar? Spain has about as much right in Morocco as we probably have in Gibraltar.

On the first point, it is in the long-term interests of the people in Gibraltar and Spain that they should grow in friendship and work together. When the frontier is opened in due course, that should open the way to that process. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's second point, I have no intention of opening such tripartite talks at present. We shall take one step at a time.

Are we still bipartisan on Gibraltar, or did the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) speak for his party when he said that Spain should reoccupy Gibraltar?

The right hon. Gentleman did not speak for Her Majesty's Government.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to detain the House. This is my maiden point of order. A fortnight ago I tabled a question for answer by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs—

Order. Because this is the hon. Gentleman's maiden point of order, he is probably not aware that I take points of order of that character after any application under Standing Order No. 9.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I take points of order after applications under Standing Order No. 9.