asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's ambassador to Angola last met President Dos Santos of Angola; and if he will make a statement.

Her Majesty's ambassador's last private meeting with the President of Angola was on 27 July 1982. I understand that he hopes to meet the President again today. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend will know, the Angolan Minister of External Relations, Senor Paulo Jorge, is due to arrive in the United Kingdom tomorrow and I have arranged for a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, to meet him during the course of his visit.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. He will know of my continuing concern for my constituent, Mr. Malcolm Wright, who has been in prison in Angola for seven years. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it would be appropriate tomorrow to make an appeal to the Minister of External Relations of the People's Republic of Angola for clemency for my constituents and other British prisoners held in Angola?

I am sure that the Angolan Minister of External Relations is aware of the concern in this matter. Equally, I am sure that he will understand if my hon. Friend raises the case of his constituent.

May I advert to the subject of linkage? Is it not a fact that the concept is rejected not only by Her Majesty's Government but by all the other members of the Contact Group, with the exception of the United States? Therefore, is it not intolerable that the United States should aid and abet the racist Government of South Africa by using this concept to prevent democracy coming to Namibia as rapidly as possible, as required by the United Nations?

The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share the construction that he puts on the position of the United States in these matters. He will know, because I have told him before, that we take the view that if this opportunity provides a means of securing a wider ranging settlement in southern Africa, it is not one that we should reject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps are currently being taken by Her Majesty's Government to improve relations between the Warsaw Pact powers and the countries belonging to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

We and our allies in NATO have consistently made clear our desire to develop more constructive relations with the member states of the Warsaw Pact. Relations in each case must, however, take account of the actions and policies of the country concerned.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, first, that the one thing that should unite East and West is the bringing to justice of Nazi war criminals, such as Barbie? What steps will the Government take, with other Governments, to bring notorious Nazi mass murderers such as Josef Mengele to justice? On the wider question, would it not be useful to explore seriously initiatives by the Soviet Union and not dismiss them out of hand, and to recognise the burning desire of the people of Europe to have a lasting and durable peace?

On the hon. Member's first point, I am sure that the House would wish to see justice done in all such cases of war criminals.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the development that is most likely to improve relations between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO would be for the Soviet leader, Mr. Andropov, to accept, rather than reject out of hand, as he has done, President Reagan is invitation to a summit meeting?

The issue of a summit meeting between Mr. Andropov and President Reagan is essentially a matter for them. They must judge when the time is right. I hope that Mr. Andropov and the Russian leaders will change their minds about the zero-zero proposal that is on the table and find it in their hearts to accept it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Madrid conference is one forum in which East and West can be brought together? Is it not therefore to be regretted that the Government appear to be backing the deadlock that is occurring in Madrid today? Will the Government consider in some way abandoning the almost grovelling adherence to the American hard line at Madrid, to get some movement forward? Surely the future of Europe and its people is more important than a pig-headed approach at any one summit meeting?

The well-being and prosperity of the European peoples are uppermost in our minds. Our objective at the Madrid conference is to reach agreement on a substantial and balanced concluding document covering all the areas of the Helsinki Final Act. Different countries have different views about that, but that is our objective. We need a clear demonstration of Soviet willingness to live up to all the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act, including human rights, and to build on them. That is what we are trying to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on 20 December, Official Report, c. 327, on how many occasions the British high commission in Harare has made representations to the Zimbabwe Government concerning individual cases of hardship to British citizens caused by Zimbabwe's exchange controls; and on how many occasions such representations have had a successful outcome.

In 1982 the British high commission raised 11 cases with the appropriate Zimbabwe Government Department.

I am grateful for that information, even though it covers only a small number of people. As the Government are at present granting millions of pounds to Zimbabwe, is it not possible to make some of that money available in Great Britain to British residents who wish to leave Zimbabwe but cannot bring any of their money out? Is my hon. Friend aware that many people—an example is the mother of my constituent Mr. Thomas—desperately need medical attention, which is no longer available in Zimbabwe? Can the British Government help British citizens who are in that situation?

The answer to my hon. Friend's first question is that the terms of the Overseas Aid Act 1968 preclude us from making payments of the kind that she suggests direct to individuals. On the second question, I am aware of my hon. Friend's anxiety about that case, on which we corresponded some months ago. If she will send me full details of the present position I shall be happy to ask our high commission to see what it can do about the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is considering any initiatives to improve relationships with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.

My right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland have recently had separate meetings with the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs. No doubt there will be other meetings of this kind, though no others at that level are fixed at present.

Would not the best initiative be to raise with the Government of the Republic of Ireland the possibility of setting up a forum at which representatives of the people of the whole of Ireland could discuss issues which interest the whole of Ireland, such as energy policy, economic development, transport and perhaps security?

The hon. Gentleman is putting forward a suggestion similar to one recently aired by the SDLP in Northern Ireland. We believe that the establishment of widely acceptable devolved institutions in Northern Ireland offers the best chance of securing peace, political stability and recovery there.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that these negotiations are being conducted on the basis of two sovereign, foreign, independent states?

I was referring, not to negotiations, but to occasional meetings, which do, and should, take place between two sovereign states inhabiting the same island.

Will the Minister not be so offhand in rejecting, by implication, the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Dubs)? Will serious consideration be given to establishing some kind of forum in which peoples from both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland can meet to discuss matters of common interest—political, economic and social? Will he consider extending that so that we establish some kind of forum in which this Parliament and the peoples and Parliaments of both parts of Ireland can meet to discuss such matters?

There is the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. There have been several ministerial meetings within that framework over the past year. It is for this House and the Dail to consider a parliamentary body.

May it be made clear to the Irish Government that they and the Irish Republic have no business whatsoever in the internal arrangements for the government of the United Kingdom?

Certainly the constitutional future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of the Province, the United Kingdom Government and this Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that Dr. Garret FitzGerald has always tended to adopt a responsible attitude towards the problems of Northern Ireland? Will the Government therefore ensure that any initiative that he puts forward will receive a positive response in that context?

We try to keep the Irish Government in touch with our thinking on Northern Ireland, but we cannot accept that there is a commitment to consult them about it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Belize.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the breakdown of talks about Belize.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the breakdown of negotiations about the future of Belize.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to have further negotiations with Guatemala and Belize about territorial sovereignty.

Talks took place in New York on 24 January between British and Guatemalan officials about relations between Britain and Guatemala. On the same occasion representatives of Belize and Guatemala discussed the Belize-Guatemala dispute.

rose—

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

Will the Minister confirm that, following the breakdown of the talks, the United Kingdom remains committed to the defence of Belize? Will he assure the House that the arms supplied to Guatemala by the United States will not be used against Belize?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position remains as it has been. That is to say, we have a garrison in Belize which will remain for the appropriate period. The arms so far supplied by the United States to Guatemala are not necessarily a significant increase in the Guatemalan military capability. However, the United States Government are well aware of our anxiety over the supply of military equipment to that Government.

Can the Minister give an assurance that no British firms are involved, either directly or indirectly, in supplying arms to Guatemala?

I have no knowledge of any such involvement.

Can the Minister say how many Guatemalan refugees there are in Belize?

Not without notice, Sir.

Will the Minister make it clear that the House will take a dim view of President Reagan's agreeing to the export to Guatemala of American arms which might conceivably be used not just against Belize but against British forces in due course?

I am sure that the American Government will take note of the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman. We have already expressed our views to the American Government on the subject.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that British forces will remain in Belize to guarantee its security for as long as the democratically elected Government in Belize ask them to do so, or until such time as alternative security arrangements can be made?

I assure my hon. Friend that the garrison will remain in Belize for an appropriate period. It must plainly be our long-term objective to try to create circumstances in which the presence of such a garrison in an independent state is no longer necessary for its security.

Will the Minister not be so mealy-mouthed about condemning the regime in Guatemala? Does he accept that Guatemala still has eyes on Belize? Will the Government assist Belize if the Guatemalans make any move?

I did not think that I was being mealy-mouthed. I am well aware of the statements that have emanated from the Guatemalan Government. The hon. Gentleman should understand that the presence of our garrison represents a commitment to preserve the integrity of Belize.

When the Minister talks about the garrison being there for "an appropriate period", will he please clarify that observation and make it patently clear that as long as there is any threat to the integrity of Belize from Guatemala our forces will remain there? In making the representations that he has to the United States, has he had any response to the question, which I hope he will have posed: what is the purpose of the United States in supplying arms to Guatemala? Is it to sustain democracy?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to act as a spokesman for the United States Government over their policy.

Why not?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take this matter seriously, that we are well aware of our commitments and that other states in the area have an equal interest in the integrity of Belize. I hope that as time passes we shall be able to help Belize to widen the basis of its security.

Will my hon. Friend consider pressing the American Government to attach strict conditions to any future sale of arms to Guatemala?

I should not wish to do anything to encourage the sale of arms so long as there is a danger that they might at some stage be used against Belize or against ourselves.

Will the Minister confirm that, according to the Prime Minister's answer on the general question of countries rescheduling debts and British banks assisting those countries with their economic difficulties, Guatemala, like Argentina and many other countries that are buying arms to suppress other peoples, can enjoy the benefit of British bankers' assistance, and thereby support from the British taxpayer, because of the subsequent tax relief for those countries which may be indebted in the end?

I am not sure of the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am surprised that he should apparently feel that it is in the interest of world peace that there should be economic chaos in any country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why a payment of £341 was made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to Palestine for 1981–82, as listed in the Appropriation Accounts for that year.

When the mandate for Palestine terminated in 1948 certain liabilities of the former Palestine Government remained outstanding to be met by Her Majesty's Government.

How does the Foreign Office define the geographical area that is called Palestine?

I was trying to guess what the supplementary question would be. In this case, we are dealing with the area covered by the former Government of Palestine.

Will my right hon. Friend and the Government do all that they can to bring about a reconstitution of the state of Palestine. if that is what the Palestinian people themselves wish? In particular, will he move towards that by doing all that he can to bring forward the visit of the Arab League delegation to the United Kingdom, and to do so, if necessary, will he drop the condition precedent, whereby the Palestinians must forgo terrorism, when the major source of terrorist attacks in the region has been the state of Israel?

We hope that the Arab League mission will come here before long. There is a later question on which these wider topics can best be dealt with.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what current discussions are taking place between the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the United States Department concerning progress in the various disarmament negotiations; and if he will inform the House of any recent initiatives, suggestions or proposals which have been put forward in such talks by Her Majesty's Government.

We are in constant touch with the United States Administration about the arms control negotiations, both in NATO and bilaterally. We are discussing the issues thoroughly with Vice-President Bush today. I cannot reveal the content of confidential exchanges with another Government. But I can tell the House that we discussed with the Americans all the initiatives which the West has recently taken in nuclear, chemical and conventional arms control.

Does the Secretary of State agree that we have gained the reputation of being "Little Sir Echo" to the American Administration in these negotiations? Does he further agree that there is little evidence of the British Government showing initiatives in this area, a role which, as the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) reminded us at the weekend, has been carried out by successive British Administrations? When will the Prime Minister show the personal interest in disarmament that has been the mark of previous British Prime Ministers?

I think that that shows just how little the hon. Gentleman knows about it. Under successive Governments, and certainly under the present Government, there has been a great deal of bilateral contact with the United States, a great deal of discussion about the details of the negotiations and a great many suggestions have been put to them, bearing in mind that at the IMF talks and the START the United States is conducting negotiations on behalf of the West. At the moment the West has more positive initiatives on the table in the various forums than at any previous stage. Many of them are the result of conversations and discussions. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in his premise.

rose—

I call Mr. Andrew Faulds.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I sometimes wait a long time to catch your eye. I apologise for the delay. I was at that moment indulging in a private conversation.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions, and so have I, we have the advantage of the system and method of joint decision with the United States. It is not possible for these weapons to be used without the agreement of both the Prime Minister and the President. That is what the joint decision means. We have re-investigated the position, as happens every time a new Prime Minister or a new President takes office. Since then my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has examined the matter again and is of the conviction, as I am, that the joint decision means what it says, which is a satisfactory position for Britain.

In view of the preponderance of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union, does my right hon. Friend envisage any new initiatives with the United States Government to set up talks that might ban the use of these weapons in the event of war?

Yes, there have been discussions on the possibility of eliminating chemical weapons altogether. As my hon. Friend knows, we in Britain disposed of ours many years ago. The United States has taken no action on chemical weapons for some time, but it is now taking new initiatives in the talks designed to end the use of these weapons. We have made some positive suggestions about verification and other aspects. I mention this in answer to the original question of the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally). That is a positive position. I hope very much that between us—the United States and ourselves—we will achieve a successful result in this negotiation, but it depends, again, on the response of the Soviet Union.

The House will welcome the conciliatory remarks of the Foreign Secretary earlier today. Does he accept that agreement on the use of missiles is unlikely to be achieved at Geneva if the zero option is the only proposal being put forward by the United States? Surely it is time for Britain to counter the Soviet propaganda offensive by putting forward proposals of its own, perhaps along the commendable lines of the nuclear free zone proposed by the Palme commission? Surely it is time that we stopped kowtowing to every twist of President Reagan's foreign policy and started to stimulate the process of agreement?

I am not so interested in any propaganda related to arms control. I am interested in trying to get an agreement. The whole of our effort is designed and intended to achieve an agreement. That is why we must negotiate seriously around the tables at the various forums, which is what we are doing. With regard to zero-zero, we should hear criticism of the Soviet Union for not accepting it, rather than criticism of us for not moving away from it. If, unfortunately, that turns out to be the case and we are satisfied that the Soviet Union means that it will not in any circumstances accept it, we shall have to consider, and we would in those circumstances consider, a less satisfactory answer—perhaps an intermediate position on the way to a zero-zero position. I believe that the House would think it wise for ourselves and all Governments to be quite sure that there is no possibility of the zero-zero option before we contemplate any other stage, but if we are driven to it of course we will, and then we would have to sit around the table to consider what less satisfactory agreement could be reached to which the Soviet Union would agree.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we are in a special position to convey to the United States Government the anxieties that exist within our European continent about the level of armaments and to urge upon that Administration the need for maximum resourcefulness and imagination in their approach to the negotiations in Geneva?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. The United States has shown much imagination in this matter. The zero-zero option was put forward by the Americans and has been rejected by the Soviet Union. That rejection should be criticised. Britain and America have been using all their imagination and endeavour to produce a series of proposals as they have become necessary. What we want above all else is an agreement to reduce armaments.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are considering any new initiative to persuade the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to allow Anatoly Shcharansky to leave that country; and if Her Majesty's Government will consider combining with other European countries in an approach to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

My right hon. Friend summoned the Soviet ambassador on 7 February and asked him to convey to the Soviet Government an urgent appeal for Mr. Shcharansky's immediate release on humanitarian grounds. In present circumstances, we believe that bilateral approaches and raising the issue at the Madrid meeting are the right way of dealing with this matter.

Will the Minister accept that that is a most helpful answer? As he has stated, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has expressed her concern and sympathy for Mr. Shcharansky, as have other European Heads of State. Will the Minister suggest to his right hon. Friend that a concerted approach by Heads of State might secure the release of this poor, unfortunate gentleman?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments. Several Governments are expressing their views in the clearest possible terms, and the Soviet Union is being left in no doubt that Mr. Shcharansky, who is a member of the Helsinki monitoring group, is of special importance because of the present talks in Madrid.

What reply would Her Majesty's Government make to a demand by the Soviet Union that a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons should be set at liberty?

The right hon. Gentleman should realise that Mr. Shcharansky's status as a member of the Helsinki monitoring group seeking to ensure that the Soviet Union observes the agreements into which it entered at the Helsinki conference gives a special interest to he rest of the world to draw to the attention of the Soviet Union its failure to comply with its obligations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly all hon. Members, especially those who are concerned with human rights, and the all party Committees will be delighted with the initiative that my right hon. Friend has taken?

What about Chile?

Will he carry on with the same enthusiasm to pursue the Russians in their determination to deprive Soviet Jews of their basic human rights, which are important to hon. Members on both sides of the House?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It is clear that Mr. Shcharansky's case is important, not only for the reasons that I mentioned, but because he has become a symbol of the desire of people to choose whether they wish to live in the Soviet Union or to leave. That right has been increasingly denied them by the Soviet Union, again contrary to the Helsinki agreement.

What answer would the Foreign Office give to a request by the Soviet Union for the immediate release of political prisoners who have from time to time been on hunger strike in prisons in Northern Ireland?

The hon. Gentleman does a disservice to this country and to Parliament by trying to equate the free and correct trial of a person charged with a criminal offence with the bogus charges that are made against many Soviet citizens for indulging in actions of which the Soviet Government disapprove.

I thank my hon. Friend for all that he said and for all that he is doing for Mr. Shcharansky. Will he never cease to make an effort for the pathetic and numerous batallion of other people who wish to leave that country but are not allowed to do so?

My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that, although Mr. Shcharansky's case is well known around the world, tens of thousands, and possibly hundreds of thousands, of people who are unknown in Britain have similar problems.

As the Opposition believe in human rights throughout the world, we fully support the humanitarian calls to free Anatoly Shcharansky from the Soviet Union. Is the Minister aware that we believe that his continued imprisonment in the Soviet Union can only sour relations between East and West, and will he continue to exert the maximum pressure on the Soviet Government to respond to international feeling?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It will assist us in our representations to be able to say that my right hon. Friend speaks for both sides of the House on this matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts Her Majesty's Government have made to bring about a ceasefire between Iraq and Iran.

We have supported attempts by the United Nations Secretary General and others to end this war. We voted for resolution 37/3, calling for an immediate ceasefire and a just settlement, at the recent session of the United Nations general assembly. We shall continue to support the efforts of those who are trying to achieve a solution.

Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm independent press reports that more than 200,000 people, many of them civilians who belong to minority sects, have been killed in this war? Have the Government ceased to supply military equipment to either side until hostilities are ended?

I cannot confirm the figure for casualties, but in a war that has gone on since September 1980, many people, civilian as well as military, have been killed. We are neutral in this war and we have not supplied lethal equipment to either side.

Will my right hon. Friend give us details about the amount of military equipment being supplied to the Iraqis by the Soviet Union?

No, Sir, I cannot.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as long as both sides can obtain arms there is no incentive for them to cease the war, which distracts their populations from the appalling record on human rights that prevails in both countries? In those circumstances, will the Minister reconsider negotiations between the British Government and the Iraqi Government about the supply of arms? Can he say that there has been no supply of arms to Iraq and that there are no proposals to supply arms? If that is the position, it is different from my understanding.

I repeat that we have not supplied lethal equipment to either side.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the war has now reached a stalemate and that the longer it continues the greater the danger that something might happen to destabilise the entire area? Has not the time come for Britain, with other interested countries, to approach the combatants with a view to starting negotiations towards peace?

Several individuals and organisations have been trying to do that. We have been in touch with Mr. Olaf Palme, who is the United Nations Secretary-General's representative in this matter. We have also been in touch with representatives of the Islamic Conference and many others. Perhaps the Algerians are the best placed to do the job that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and we wish them and all others every success.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek powers to compel the surrender of any joint passport which includes a child who has become the subject of a custody order made by a divorce court.

No. The courts already require the surrender of any passport if they have reason to believe that a parent intends to use it to take a child out of their jurisdiction in contravention of a court order. A parent awarded custody of a child by order of a court can enter a caveat with the passport office against the child being granted passport facilities without its parents' or the court's consent.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. However, if that is the case, and in view of the number of children who are being abducted, many of whom are taken abroad, should not the whole matter of joint passports be re-examined? If a child had its own passport, it could be given to the parent who is awarded custody.

We have been considering the general subject carefully, and there was a debate on it at breakfast time yesterday in the House. It would be difficult and complicated for individuals if we introduced the change that my hon. Friend suggests, but we do not have closed minds about ways of making it more difficult for those distressing cases of abduction to occur.

Does the Minister accept that the caveat system and administrative arrangements are not working, and that even solicitors are unaware of the possible application of the caveat system? Will he re-examine the system with a view to either greater publicity or more stringency to stop the kidnapping of children, which is causing many harrowing cases? Will he consider the possibility of having witnesses to the signature of parents, where the child is in custody, to diminish the possibility of fraudulent signatures being used to obtain passports to take children out of the country?

I should like to consider that last suggestion. The caveat system is publicised through the Law Society and citizens' advice bureaux. There would be a real difficulty in following up the suggestion in the original question as there are 150,000 decrees nisi or judicial separations each year, 60 per cent. of which include minors. It would not be possible to compel the surrender of joint passports.

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

We remain committed to the search for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the Venice principles. President Reagan's proposals and the Fez declaration have created an important opportunity for progress towards peace. I do not underestimate the difficulties, but it is, in our view, vital that this opportunity should be taken with the minimum of delay. We are doing all that we can to help this process forward.

As the Israeli tribunal has now established that the Israeli Minister of Defence is a war criminal, what can be done to reverse his destructive policies and bring about a speedy termination of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and the freezing of illegal settlements on the West Bank?

It is for the Israeli Government to consider the inquiry. With regard to the important subject of withdrawal of forces from the Lebanon, I entirely share my hon. Friend's desire for the withdrawal of all forces. The United States Administration and their negotiator Mr. Habib, are doing all that they can to achieve that. It must be admitted that, thus far, progress has been slow. Mr. Habib has recently returned. We strongly hope that he will succeed this time in bringing about a withdrawal, which must be the essential precondition to establishing a free and independent Government in Lebanon.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Economic Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the additional priorities for future common policies in the Community to be promoted by Her Majesty's Government following the successful conclusion of the common fisheries policy on 25 January.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which areas of policy he is now concentrating his efforts to achieve joint action within the European Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what common policies within the European Community he now intends to seek to negotiate.

We have ideas for developing European Community policy over the whole range of its activities. These were summarised in a booklet entitled "Britain in the European Community: A Positive Approach", which we published on 24 January. The booklet covers British proposals for extending the internal market in goods and services, for reform of the operation of the common agricultural policy, for building on the agreed framework of an energy strategy, for a lasting solution to the Community's budget problem, for extending the regional and social policies, and many other suggested directions for Community development. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

In view of the memorandum that was published by the Brandt commission today, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Third world will greatly benefit from Community interest? Does he have any proposals to put before his colleagues to provide a basis for a Community policy for the Third world?

The Community already has an aid policy to which the United Kingdom subscribes. From the point of view of the United Kingdom, that contribution to the Third world is only one part of our aid programme that will be expanded in 1983–84. Now that the second Brandt report has been published, hon. Members will wish to study it as carefully as will the Government. It is an extremely important report.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the British people are sick and tired of the continued haggling and wrangling about Britain's unfair and excessive payments to the European budget, which have continued ever since the Prime Minister went to Dublin and asked for our money back? Does he agree that no end to that wrangling is in sight because any fundamental restructuring of the budget, its revenues and expenditure, would require a new treaty which every member state Government would have to sign and there is not the political will to do that?

I agree that when we finally resolve the budget problem everyone will be greatly relieved. The hon. Gentleman referred to the British public's view. I wonder what he thinks about mine. The present Government took over from the previous one, who had made no effort to redress the imbalance in the budget. Since then we have had two successful negotiations and are about to start a third for 1983 and later years. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's desire and will do everything that I can to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. However, it would be quite wrong to pretend to the House that that will be easy.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that his proposals for securing fresh areas of agreement are specifically designed to secure greater popular acceptance of the advantages of Britain's membership? Does he agree that it is conspicuously unhelpful for the achievement of those objectives when British Airways insists on buying American aircraft rather than perfectly satisfactory European ones?

The purpose of our positive proposals over a range of Community policies is precisely to ensure greater prosperity for all members of the Community. We can now say that many of the ideas that are on the table before the Community emanated from Britain.

With regard to the development of EC policies in foreign affairs, will the right hon. Gentleman commend to our partners in the EC his and the Prime Minister's right and firm decision to refuse to meet leaders of the PLO? Will he recognise the staunch and vigorious democracy that operates under the rule of law in Israel, which is unique in that area and rare in many other parts of the world?

I often think that it is helpful if people mind their own business. I think that we might take the same view about the hon. Gentleman's point. It is for each Government to decide what their attitude should be on that issue.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the price of oil should fall dramatically there might be some fairly dire consequences for the exchange rate of sterling against European currencies? In view of the damaging possibilities of short-term fluctuations in sterling, is it not an urgent priority for European co-operation that we now become full members of the European monetary system? What efforts is he making to prevail upon his Treasury colleague to accept that point of view?

My hon. Friend acknowledged at the end of his question that this is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have conversations on the subject from time to time. I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. and learned Friend has that point firmly in mind. He has spoken on it on several occasions. It would be unreasonable to expect him suddenly to change his mind about it, but I assure my hon. Friend that he thinks about it frequently.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the pamphlet to which he referred reads much more like a Conservative party pamphlet than a Government one? How much did it cost to produce? Is he also aware that another document published by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entitled "The First 10 Years" states:

"The Common Agricultural Policy … Britain accepts its basic principles."

Hear, hear.

It is a savage indictment, Eric.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the document. I have copies of all of them. Does he agree that to talk in terms of developing common policies in the EC is absolutely ridiculous, especially when one considers what is happening with milk? Is it not silly to have a common policy when the 10 countries have completely different ways of dealing with specific questions? Can the Government assure us that the doorstep delivery of milk will in no way be affected by the recent court decision?

It had never previously crossed my mind that the subject of heated milk, of all things, could give rise to heated exchanges. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he wants about the continuation of doorstep deliveries of milk in this country. We adhere to the objectives of the CAP. What we object to is a number of ways in which it operates. We have suggested a number of alterations. We agree about excessive prices. That is why we are struggling to persuade our partners to accept lower prices than many of them require. That is the whole development of our thinking. We agree with the basic objectives.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is able to make a further statement on the European Community budget problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further negotiations there have been to settle the British budget problem within the European Community.

The Council last week established the draft 1983 supplementary and amending budget, which makes provision for our 1982 refunds. The draft budget has been sent to the European Parliament, and I hope that the Parliament will now adopt it with the minimum of delay. Discussions are continuing in the Council with the aim of finding a solution for 1983 and later years. The Commission has just published a discussion paper on the future of the Community's financing system, which we are studying.

Is it true that we have to await the decision of the European consultative assembly tomorrow to know whether we are to get the refund of £500 million? Is it true that the assembly wants assurances that the money will be spent in pursuit of EC policies over which it can exercise greater control? Will the right hon. Gentleman resist that? Does the assembly want a guarantee that this will be the last annual makeshift rebate paid to the United Kingdom? Will he also resist that?

I believe that the House knows that the European Parliament has proposed no amendment to this draft budget. It seems likely that the Parliament will agree to it tomorrow, but it remains to be seen whether it does so. If so, that will be the end of the matter. In any case, we have the assurance of the Commission that the agreement reached in the Foreign Affairs Council last year will be honoured no matter what happens. We can, I am sure, count upon that.

Do the Government take the view that the whole of the Community aid programme should be brought within the Community budget so that it can be scrutinised by the European Parliament?

I have not taken a decision or a view about that. It is under discussion.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the budgetary problems of the European Community will get no easier, particularly with the accession recently of Greece and shortly of Portugal and then Spain? Is it not true that the budgetary problems will become more complex and that the initial members will have to pay out increasing amounts, to the detriment of our industries and of agriculture?

They may get more complex, but certainly they need not do so. That is the point of the proposals that we have put forward. It is the theme of the discussions that we shall pursue in consideration of the Green Paper. Our view is that enlargement of the Community does not necessarily mean an increase in resources or the need for such an increase. Too much goes on agriculture already. It is one of the points to be made for reform of the CAP.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is absurd that the House should have to wait for a decision of the European Parliament to know the future of the budget negotiations in which the Government have been engaged with the rest of the Community? Is it not clear, as the Opposition have argued, that the increase in the assembly's powers to the detriment of the interests of the British people has been proved by this event? Will the Government make it clear, irrespective of any decisions of the so-called assembly, that they will do what is right in the interests of the British people?

We have already shown that the Government are a better defender of British interests than the Labour Government. The Labour party took part in the European elections in 1979, as did the Conservative party. There are members of the Labour party now in the European Parliament who have a role to play whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not. They are entitled to use whatever powers they have. The fact that they are voting on this issue seems to me to be a matter for them. We have the undertaking from the Commission that the bargain that was struck and the deal that was done for the 1982 refunds will occur in all circumstances.

asked Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he makes it his policy to assess the views of the Confederation of British Industry in regard to the future development of the European Community.

Yes, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the CBI that it would be a disaster for British industry if we left the Common Market? Does he accept that not only do millions of jobs depend upon our growing exports to the Common Market, by far our largest market, but that foreign firms invest in jobs and factories in this country precisely because we are members of the Common Market.

My hon. Friend is right. Personally, I hope that individual employers will inform their employees of the proportion of that firm's order book and therefore of jobs that depend on free access to the Community.

What can Foreign Office Ministers think in their reflective moments about supplies from Rolls-Royce to Blohm and Voss and from British Aerospace-Plessey to Aerospatiale Dassault of the most lethal weapons of war to be used, possibly by Argentina?

I do not see that that arises from the question.

In the interests of this and other Community policies, may I give added weight to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson)? Will my right hon. Friend ask his colleagues in the Treasury to consider an early, rather than a later, joining of the EMS?

No.

I note what my hon. Friend says. Like him, I listened to my right hon. Friend's reply. I do not wish to add to it.

When the Minister talks to the CBI, will he get its confirmation that, since this country has become a member of the Common Market, industrial putput has fallen by 16 per cent. and that 2 million manufacturing jobs have been lost? Will he have discussions at the same time with the TUC to obtain its views on membership of the Common Market?

The fact that unemployment in this country is bad is not a reason for putting more jobs at risk by withdrawing from the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next be attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers; what subjects will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.

Because of other commitments my right hon. Friend will not be attending the next Foreign Affairs Council scheduled for 21 and 22 February, so I shall go in his place. A written statement of forthcoming business of the Council of Ministers, which included details of the provisional agenda for the February Foreign Affairs Council, was published in the Official Report on 31 January.

Should not the right hon. Gentleman be delivering a clear repudiation of the diktat from the Common Market that tries to force down the throats of the British people so-called imported milk in substitution of our own most excellent product, which has been so superbly delivered in all weathers for so many years?

I gather that the product to which the hon. Gentleman refers has 1 per cent. of the market. No one is compelling the hon. Gentleman or anyone else to drink the nasty stuff.

Is it not the case that at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council the one issue that will not be discussed is any diminution of the powers of the directly elected European Parliament, which has been so much criticised in earlier exchanges? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government are genuinely interested in a positive policy towards the Community this will mean an increase in the budget and also an increase in the direct power of the European Parliament?

I do not think that we shall be discussing either a diminution or an increase in the powers of the body.

Does my right hon. Friend feel that there is any prospect of the beginning of the development of a common energy policy?

My hon. Friend knows that a start has been made on that matter. He also knows about the proposals that my right hon. Friend and others have made on behalf of this country to develop such a policy. It could certainly be a useful part of the Community's general policies.

In relation to the import of UHT milk, is it not iniquitous that we should be told by an alien body what we should and should not do about imports? Is it not a disgrace that at the behest of such a body Ministers propose to introduce legislation in this Parliament to alter the law in accordance with the ruling of the European Court of Justice?

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to make a statement on his meetings yesterday. It may be that he will refer to that point.