asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many diplomats are currently accredited from the Libyan People's Bureau.

Twenty-three.

Given the recent threats by the Libyan Government to kill exiles in western Europe, including the United Kingdom, and that it is known that funds are distributed from the Libyan mission in the United Kingdom to extremist organisations and publications, does the Minister believe that these actions conform with the normal role of a diplomatic mission that is accepted by Her Majesty's Government?

The Government have been worried by these signs and they have made their views known to the Libyan authorities at a high level in recent months. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health discussed the matter when he was there in February. He received assurances that were important to the Government. The Government had trouble in this regard in 1980, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember. Three members of the People's Bureau were asked to leave at that time. I trust that there will be no repetition.

Does my right hon. Friend consider that the subsidising of such publications as the Labour Herald is a proper function of this quasi embassy?

No. If my hon. Friend has evidence about that, I trust that he will inform me.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the visit of the Arab League delegation to London headed by King Hussein.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east.

The Arab League delegation led by King Hussein of Jordan paid a visit to London on 18 March. There was a constructive and wide-ranging discussion on the situation in the middle east.

While welcoming Her Majesty's Government's support for the Reagan proposals, may I ask whether there was any commitment from the delegation to seek negotiations for peace with the state of Israel?

Yes. There was a discussion of the first declaration, which implicitly refers to the recognition of the security and peace of all states in the region. The discussions began on the basis of the first declaration. The discussion was wide-ranging and both sides found it extremely valuable.

To what extent was the Israeli illegal occupation and fortification of southern Lebanon and of the West Bank discussed, both of which are in direct contravention of the Reagan initiative? What efforts are the British Government making to end these twin aggressions and obstacles to peace in the middle east?

The hon. Gentleman knows the British Government's view on both of those issues. They are invariably raised in all discussions about the middle east. They were not dwelt upon at length in the Arab League delegation visit, but they were touched upon. In all my recent discussions, they have been referred to.

Now that the Secretary of State has met King Hussein twice, including once recently, and King Fahd, will he go to Israel to meet the Israelis?

I have no plans at present to do so, but that is always a possibility.

Although I agree with the Foreign Secretary that the Reagan proposals still represent the best practical way forward, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the central problem has been that Mr. Begin's Government have rejected absolutely and unconditionally the idea of negotiating on them? In addition, President Reagan has failed to influence the Israeli Government either to withdraw their troops from the Lebanon, where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) said, they are fortifying their positions in the Bekaa valley, or to freeze the settlements. Today we have heard that the Israeli Government are considering a plan to build 57 more settlements in the next four years on the West Bank. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that our Government will now approach President Reagan to seek his assistance in dissuading the Israeli Government from those courses?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's factual assessment. Throughout the dispute, and ever since the Reagan plan was proposed, we have constantly urged with all our strength at presidential level, at Secretary of State level and at every other level, the urgent need for the United States of America to use its influence to bring about a change in approach by Israel. In particular, it is very regrettable that there has not yet even been a withdrawal of all forces from the Lebanon, which King Hussein and other Arab countries regard as an essential prerequisite before the process can begin. It is most regrettable that there has not been more flexibility on the part of Israel and, indeed, of the PLO. After all, the blame does not lie in one place. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have made such representations in the strongest terms.

I am sorry to press the Foreign Secretary, but does he agree that the assassination of Mr. Sartawi shows that more extremist elements are coming to the fore in the PLO and that they will be even more encouraged unless action is taken on the West Bank? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring that, in the strongest possible terms, to the attention of President Reagan, who appears to be the only one with any influence over Mr. Begin?

That murder was a deplorable incident and is regretted, I believe, by everybody. I am not sure whether it is true that more terrorism is coming to the fore, but there is certainly a risk of that, and the murder was a very bad example. However, there are divisions within the PLO which make that side of the negotiations extremely difficult. It is a matter of the utmost regret that the PLO was unable, in the end, to come to an agreement with King Hussein, because that would have been a very helpful aspect of the progress in the negotiations.

Has my right hon. Friend noted the comment by General Eitan threatening to set up 100 new illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank and his comment that the Arabs would then be like drugged cockroaches running round in a bottle? Is not such a continuing blatant disregard of international law and racist attitude the real reason for the breakdown in peace negotiations?

A number of people on both sides make some rather rash comments that are in no way helpful. I would not say more about the comment that my hon. Friend has mentioned, but I share the view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that the proposal to increase the number of settlements on the West Bank by 57 was very offensive at the time and in the circumstances that it was made. The British Government's view is that those settlements are illegal and are certainly completely contrary to the Reagan plan. The sooner the proposal is reversed, the better.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iraq.

We maintain normal relations with the Government of Iraq, reflecting the political, economic and cultural ties that we have with that country.

Did the Minister get any idea about the future of the problems of Iraq and the middle east? Did he raise with the Iraqis the relationship between that country and Iran, and, of course, Israel? Did the right hon. Gentleman mention what happened in the attempted assassination in this country and ask the Iraqis to ensure that none of their people are armed when in this country? We deplore such assassinations no matter where they are carried out, but particularly when they occur in this country.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's second point, and on several occasions we have made that clear, not only to the Government of Iraq, but to others whom we are anxious should know our views. We have certainly made it clear to the Government of Iraq. My right hon. Friend has dealt with the Arab-Israeli side of the hon. Gentleman's first point. There is great concern in the Gulf area about the continuance of the Iraq-Iran war, and that is reflected in Baghdad. We discussed ways in which the war could be brought to an end, but at the moment the prospects do not look very hopeful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the international obligations of the United Kingdom towards refugees.

The principal international obligations of the United Kingdom towards refugees are those arising under the United Nations convention relating to the status of refugees of 1951, as modified by the protocol of 1967. The convention defines a refugee and gives guidance on international standards for the treatment of refugees.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are very concerned because in about 1979, 37 per cent. of those who applied for refugee status or for political asylum from the Eastern bloc were granted it, whereas in 1983 only 11 or 12 per cent. of those who applied have been granted it. To many of us that seems to be a tragic reduction in the figure. If the Foreign Secretary wants to maintain the respect of our friends and allies, the number should be very substantially increased.

I remind the right hon. Gentleman that decisions on individual applications for refugee status are dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. My right hon. Friend obviously takes into account the guidelines laid down in the United Nations convention to which I have referred.

In view of the reply that my hon Friend has just given, will he bear in mind that the Home Secretary told me only yesterday in a written reply that 142 applications by refugees from the Eastern bloc were refused in 082 and that the eventual fate of those people is not known? Would it not be possible for him to consider with the Home Secretary whether there is any chance of improving the refugee review system to ensure the standard of democracy in which we all believe?

I know that my right hon. Friend tries to treat applications for refugee status as sympathetically as possible. Of course, it is impossible to grant every application when pursuing a policy in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the United Nations convention.

Does the Minister accept that this country's obligations to refugees extend to those who are already settled here, such as the many thousands of Ugandans who were driven out by Amin, and that those obligations include making every effort to help them to obtain compensation for what was stolen from them by the Amin regime?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention to that problem. He will be aware that the present Ugandan Government have introduced a new initiative to help to resolve some of those problems. We shall do all we can to help British citizens or other persons resident here who seek a resolution of those difficulties.

Is the Minister really satisfied that the Home Office takes sufficient account of the views of the Foreign Office about refugees? Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anxiety about the growing evidence that this country is no longer willing to give a safe haven to those fleeing persecution and oppression? Is he further aware that the Government's record of granting political asylum to people from countries such as Chile, Poland, Iran and South Africa—many of whom are sent home to face imprisonment and, often, death—shows that the Government's policy is arbitrary, inconsistent and a disgrace to the fine reputation that this country once had on this subject?

The hon. Gentleman's remarks suggest that he is not aware of the United Nations guidelines to which my right hon. Friend pays attention. The United Nations convention states that a refugee should not be returned to his country where his life or freedom would be endangered on account of his race, religion or political opinion. Those are exactly the criteria to which my right hon. Friend pays attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will next discuss cruise missiles with Foreign Ministers of other European countries.

Whenever I next meet them.

Do the Government intend to press for power to veto cruise launchings, meaningless though that would be? Will the Minister press for the inclusion in his negotiations of all intermediate nuclear weapons in Europe, not excepting Polaris and the French nuclear weapons, and not confining them to Mr. Reagan's selective choice of systems?

On the first point, the question of a veto does not arise, because the weapons can be used only on the basis of joint decision. So there is no question of veto. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's second point, yes, the negotiations on INF are confined to INF weapons. Polaris is not an INF weapon. It is a strategic weapon, and was recognised as such by the Soviet Union in earlier negotiations on strategic weapons.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his West German opposite number, will he take the opportunity to congratulate him warmly on the robust stand taken by the electorate in West Germany on these issues, which I hope will be repeated in this country before many weeks have passed? Secondly, is it not all too obvious that a gross imbalance of theatre nuclear weapons neither serves the cause of peace in western Europe nor brings a feeling of security to western European countries?

I am sure that my German opposite number is more grateful than anyone else that the German electorate showed the robustness that it did. In answer to my hon. Friend's second point, yes, part of the immediate problem is the imbalance in these weapons. Incidentally, that is why a freeze is quite unacceptable. To ensure the security of both sides we want a reduction in armaments to the lowest number of weapons that it is possible to negotiate.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has always been an imbalance in these weapons because NATO always decided to match the Soviet intermediate-range missiles in Europe by allocating Polaris and Poseidon submarine warheads to SACEUR? Does he accept the view of Field-Marshal Lord Carver that there is no military case for the deployment of those weapons and the growing evidence that their deployment would immensely damage public support for NATO in all the countries concerned? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore drop these proposals and align himself with the great majority of people on both sides of the Atlantic who would now support a freeze on the deployment of all nuclear weapons?

I completely reject what the right hon. Gentleman said. In fact, the Labour Government were party to considering and agreeing to address the matter of modernisation. That matter has been addressed and brought to a conclusion by this Government. I am certain that the absence of modernised intermediate nuclear weapons leaves a gap in our deterrence strategy. We have against us a constantly increasing number of SS20s and other weapons, and unless we modernise our weapons—our present weapons are aging and out-ofdate—there will be a gap in our deterrence. The whole basis of our defence policy is to deter war and preserve peace. Therefore, NATO cannot afford to have a gap in that shield. That is why we are proceeding with this modernisation, unless the Soviet Union is prepared to negotiate the zero option.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the word "modernisation" applied to these weapons is wholly mistaken, because there have never been any intermediate-range land-based missiles in the NATO armoury since Thor and Jupiter were withdrawn after the Russians had begun deploying their SS4 and SS5 missiles? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that to pretend that cruise is modernising the short-range battlefield nuclear weapons now being withdrawn by NATO is dishonest in the extreme?

That is not the proposal at all. We are facing an escalating number of SS20s, which are modernising the SS4s and SS5s, on the Warsaw pact side. We had Vulcans and United States intermediate weapons. We needed the modernisation of these in order to have a deterrent effect against potential use of Warsaw Pact weapons. Had we not taken that decision, we should be completely exposed in that area. That is why NATO decided that it needed a complete range of deterrent capabilities, and that is why we intend to modernise it. On those grounds, it must be the right decision.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shift of position by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is extremely dangerous and will give great heart to the men in the Kremlin? When he suggests that Western strategic nuclear forces should be weighed in the balance against the increasing theatre capability of the Soviets, does he not take into account the fact that the Soviets now have a preponderence at the strategic level and that three quarters of their strategic nuclear force has been constructed in the past five years?

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am bound to say that it is extremely regrettable that the right hon. Gentleman has had that change of mind. However, it is his responsibility, and it is not for me to comment on it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been said twice on the Government Benches that my position on cruise was at one time different from what it now is. That is absolutely untrue. [Interruption.]

Order.

rose—

Order. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman made his position quite clear, that he has not changed his mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is able to make a statement about progress at the intermediate range nuclear forces talks currently being held in Geneva.

Progress in the fourth round of the INF negotiations, which finished on 29 March, was disappointing. The Russians were obstructionist, and seem to have decided that they would try to appeal over the heads of the negotiators to public opinion in western Europe. They flatly refused to negotiate on the basis of the zero option. As a consequence of this, at the end of the round ambassador Nitze, with NATO's full support, took the important step of offering to negotiate an interim agreement which would provide equal limits on the missile warheads of the United States and the Soviet Union. By definition, an interim agreement is far short of the complete elimination of a whole system of missiles which the Alliance wants to see, but it is the next best alternative.

Can my right hon. Friend give an account of the Russian response to Ambassador Nitze's proposal? Is he saying that the balance will now be struck by a reduction in nuclear warheads, rather than in the total number of missiles deployed by both sides?

The proposal that was tabled at the end of the last round was not dealt with in detail at the negotiating table because there is a break between that round and the next one. We have had an almost immediate and apparently total rejection of the proposal by the Soviet Union. Its Foreign Minister held a press conference, the third in his 25 years as Foreign Minister, which lasted a considerable time, and appeared to be completely negative. Whether we like it or not, the present position of the Soviet Union is negative and extraordinarily unhelpful. We have been rightly pressed on this Bench by Members on both sides of the House to be as forthcoming and positive as we can on arms control proposals. We have made them in conjunction with our allies, and the response that we are receiving at present is most regrettable.

The Foreign Secretary used the phrase "equal limits". By that does he mean the totality of nuclear weapons held by NATO countries as against the totality of nuclear weapons held by Warsaw Pact countries?

We want equality on both sides—a balance that is verifiable. That is the best way to achieve the security to which both sides are entitled.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise at the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation the issue of the violation of religious, cultural and educational rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

We have raised Soviet human rights violations both at the recent meeting of the United Nations human rights commission in Geneva and at the CSCE review meeting at Madrid. We have no present intention of raising these issues at UNESCO, but we shall be alert for any suitable opportunities to make known our concerns.

Is my hon. Friend aware that UNESCO is one international organisation that should be doing something to prevent the destruction of cultural rights in the Soviet Union and the destruction of the religion, schools and language of Jews in Soviet Russia? Is he aware that UNESCO appears to have done nothing over the years, that it has remained silent about the arrest of Yosif Begun for championing those rights, and that it has utterly ignored the petition which the all-party group in the House presented on behalf of 120 academics three years ago? Will my hon. Friend do everything that he can to make sure that UNESCO faces its international responsibilities for the defence of human rights?

UNESCO's main responsibility in cultural matters is in the sphere of international collaboration rather than in the circumstances of an individual country. But I agree with my hon. and learned Friend that an improvement in cultural freedom in the Soviet Union would be of assistance in promoting international collaboration on cultural matters.

When the Minister is considering this important issue, will he accept from me that there is genuine pleasure in this country this week that Lida Vashchenko, one of the seven Pentecostalists, who has been given refuge for the past four years in the American embassy in Moscow, has now been able to leave the Soviet Union for Israel? Will he express to the Soviet authorities our pleasure at this decision and also express to them our hope and expectation that the rest of the members of these two very brave families will soon be allowed to join Lida Vashchenko in Israel?

We are of course delighted that Mr. Vashchenko has been allowed to leave the Soviet Union. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the other families who were resident at the American embassy have now left it and returned to Siberia. We hope that the Soviet Union will give them similar freedom to leave the Soviet Union if that is their wish.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the recent Arab League delegation, led by King Hussein of Jordan, gave any commitments that the countries represented in the delegation will recognise the state of Israel.

King Hussein made it clear on behalf of the Arab League delegation that they were committed to the Fez principles, one of which calls for the Security Council to guarantee peace among all states of the region.

As the Foreign Secretary, unfairly in my opinion, accused Israel today of total inflexibility on the Reagan plan, will he list any occasion on which Israel has denied the legitimate rights of any Arab state within the United Nations?

Israel continues to occupy part of the Lebanon, to increase settlements on the West Bank and to deny self-determination to the Palestinians living in the occupied territories. That is part of the reason—only part of the reason—why President Reagan's peace plan has arrived at the present deadlock.

As the PLO demonstrated a staggering lack of realism, and indeed courage, in refusing to allow King Hussein of Jordan to negotiate on its behalf for the good of the Palestinians, does my right hon. Friend think that it is time for those negotiations to embrace other than PLO supporters among moderate Palestinians?

We certainly think that the PLO has failed to take advantage of an opportunity that would have been important not only for the Palestinians, whom it claims to represent, but for the area as a whole. The King of Jordan has come to the conclusion that he cannot proceed further under the Reagan plan without agreement with the PLO. We must respect the reasons for that decision.

With regard to recognition, is it not rather farcical that American leaders should accuse the PLO of being responsible for the breakdown in the peace negotiations when they refuse even to speak to this body, which is the officially recognised mouthpiece of the Palestinian people? Is it not also farcical that at the same time they say nothing about the increased programme of Israeli settlements on the West Bank and the installation by Israel of sophisticated military equipment in the Lebanon? Will the Minister try to put some backbone into these American leaders so that they can stand up on these matters?

The Americans have made clear their views about the Israel settlement policy and are doing their best through Mr. Habib to bring about the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including Israeli forces, from the Lebanon.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not entirely satisfactory that one has to infer from statements on the Arab side that they might recognise Israel, as they cannot bring themselves to mention the name of the country? Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the countries in the area publish maps which omit to show the state of Israel, which is not a safe situation? Surely it is this insecurity that is created in Israel by this refusal of recognition that is leading to the problems on the borders, for instance with Lebanon.

I agree that it is fuzzy and unsatisfactory. As my hon. Friend knows, we have been urging the PLO for some time to make it clear without fuzziness and ambiguity that it would be ready clearly to accept Israel's rights when Israel makes it clear that she is ready to accept Palestinian self-determination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the discussions at the European Security Conference in Madrid to be concluded.

The conference resumes on 19 April. We hope that agreement on a substantial and balanced concluding document will be reached during the forthcoming session. But we are not there yet.

Does the Minister's hope extend to the Soviet Union agreeing to comply with its obligations under the final act of the Helsinki agreement and allowing those thousands of its Jewish citizens who are seeking to leave to do so in accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to let out of prisons and slave camps people such as Anatoly Shcharansky?

One of the reasons why agreement on a concluding document has not been reached is that we are not satisfied with the human rights performance of the Soviet Union. This applies in particular to the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. We are deeply concerned about the reduction in Jewish emigration, which fell to around 2,600 in 1982, compared to 51,000 in 1979.

Bearing in mind that the Soviet Union and its satellites have repeatedly violated both the letter and the spirit of the Helsinki accord, that gross violations of human rights continue, and that those heroic souls who have attempted to monitor those violations in their own countries have been thrown into prison, why do we continue with these farcical discussions?

We continue them because it is the Helsinki process that gives us the right to make representations in these matters. Without the Helsinki final act and the continuing procedures our position would be much less strong. Therefore it is worth while trying to see—we have not yet succeeded—whether we can agree a document at the end of this conference which would represent an advance in human rights, to which my hon. Friend is rightly devoted, and to achieve a proper balance through all the baskets of the Helsinki final act.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans to discuss the future of relations between the United Kingdom and Argentina with other American nations.

I take every opportunity to explain to other American nations our attitude to future relations with Argentina. The Governments of these nations can be in no doubt of our willingness to move back towards a normal relationship with Argentina, but so far Argentina has not even declared a definitive end to hostilities, still less renounced the possibility of a further resort to force.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, while the decision to expand the existing airport at Port Stanley, or to site a new airport, may be a decision for another Department, that decision will have enormous foreign policy implications, in that it will be a signal to the Argentines and to others of our intention to stay there until kingdom come? Therefore, before he undertakes further discussions with countries in Latin America, will he consult the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the right decision is made on that capital investment?

It was not so long ago that the House was criticising this Government and the previous Government for not acting on the recommendations of an earlier Shackleton report that there should be a second airfield. The situation being what it is, the airfield is necessary in present circumstances for the defence of the islanders. We have taken the decision, although we have not yet decided exactly how it is to be carried out. We believe it to be necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the building of an air base in the Falklands is in keeping with the policies that have been pursued by successive British Governments? There is a military need to provide this base and later it can be used for civil purposes as the circumstances change.

It will be used for civil purposes, anyway.

On 2 May, did the Foreign Secretary know of the Prime Minister's decision to sink the General Belgrano and if so, why did the Government not consult our American allies whose hemispheric relations were affected?

I do not think that that arises under this question.

In any consultations that the right hon. Gentleman embarks upon with other American nations in relation to this matter, will he give an assurance to the House that he will not seek to secure closer and more friendly relations with Chile while it continues under the present odious regime? In particular, does he recognise that it would be seen as being very cynical indeed to denounce, rightly, in the way that he has done the Argentine regime for being fascist, while at the same time giving some form of approbation to the odious regime in Chile?

The Government's policy is to improve relations with all countries in Latin America.

Was there an inquiry into General Matthei's remarks about the representations made to my right hon. Friend's Department concerning Oscar Rojas, about whom assurances were given by the Chilean Ambassador in London, who is now his country's Foreign Minister? What steps were taken to ensure that the inquiries made by the British Government were being followed through?

I require notice of that question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards reaching an agreement about the European Community budget.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in reaching agreement on European Community finance; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding the latest position in resolving the Community budget problem.

The European Council on 21 and 22 March agreed that the Commission would submit specific proposals as soon as possible on the future financing of the Community, to include a lasting solution to the problem of budgetary imbalances. The Foreign Affairs Council will report to the June European Council its conclusions both on the long term and on the arrangements for the interim until the lasting solution can be implemented. Provision for United Kingdom refunds in respect of 1983 will be incorporated in the draft Community budget for 1984.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the extension of common policies for regional development, energy and transport could play a real part in the long-term resolution of our budget problem?

I think that the development of these policies would make a contribution to the long-term wellbeing of the Community as a whole. However, I think that their effect upon the budget problem would be minimal. The policies that my hon. Friend has in mind will probably not be implemented until the 1983 budget has been negotiated, and, perhaps, the budgets of later years.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that currency stability is an important condition for the resolving of the budgetary problem? Will he be prepared to make his contribution to resolving the problem by offering British entry into the European monetary system at what is still an extremely propitious moment?

That issue is kept under constant review by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If he were contemplating a change of policy, he would announce that himself. The variation in exchange rates is an inhibiting factor in international trade, but I do not think that it is fundamental to the solution of the budget problem.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is still the Government's intention that the issue of the 1983 budget rebate for the United Kingdom should be resolved at the June meeting? Can he say whether he thinks that will be the case in view of recent speculation?

That was the clear wish of the European Council at the meeting that I attended. We shall see how things develop. I have every reason to suppose that there is now a clear intention, which was missing before, to solve the 1983 budget issue reasonably quickly. I think that the longer term solution will take longer to reach, and so I hope that a conclusion will be reached in the way that the European Council decided.

Is the right hon. Gentleman ignoring what happened at the European assembly yesterday, when the EC President, Mr. Thorn, made it clear that the Commission would not be taking any part in the negotiations? Does this not mean that the Government's hopes of achieving a June settlement have been dashed? Is he aware that hon. Members on both sides of the House have been saying that the European assembly is now becoming a European Parliament and is flexing its muscles, taking decisions and putting Parliaments such as this into an impossible position?

I have not seen a full text of the speech of the President of the Commission, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, having been at the European Council, I know what was decided. The Commission, of course, will act in accordance with its decision. Therefore, I have every reason to suppose that what was decided there will be carried out.

As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that the paper from the Commission is intended to provide a long-term solution, is it not envisaged that it might contain some mechanism to allow the budget to be enlarged?

That has not yet been addressed. The Commission has submitted only a discussion paper on the long-term solution, and that has not yet been addressed in any detail. There has been one tour de table and member states have been invited to submit their views on it. As I have said, it has not yet been addressed, but it will be at subsequent meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what items discussed at the meeting of Heads of Government of the members of the European Community will be placed on the agenda of further meetings of Councils of Ministers; and if any items are likely to be of legislative consequence.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 24 March describing the main items discussed at the European Council. All of the Community matters discussed there are likely to be considered further at meetings of the Council of Ministers. I cannot at this stage be specific about which will lead to legislation.

That being so, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the Heads of Government agree on a particular matter, which becomes the subject of legislative action, the Council of Ministers, which is the only constitutional body, can do little other than carry out the wishes of the Council, which at present is a non-treaty body? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that after the Prime Minister attends these Council meetings it would be much better if she made verbal statements to the House rather than statements in the form of written answers?

I think that my right hon. Friend's statement was clear. The hon. Gentleman has many opportunities to question both her and Foreign Office Ministers on the matter. The European Council asked the Foreign Affairs Council to report back at the Stuttgart meeting in June on the British budgetary refund.

Will my right hon. Friend please do his best to ensure that the Helsinki agreement is considered by the Council of Ministers at an early date, especially its effect upon postal communications with the Soviet Union, which seems to be the main cause of current problems? We seem to have little assistance in getting my constituents' messages through to their Jewish colleagues in that totalitarian country.

There is good co-ordination among the Ten on the stand to be taken at the Madrid conference. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend's point is considered by us and the Ten.

In Granada's "World in Action" programme on Monday night a film was shown entitled "The Golden Harvest", which drew attention to the tremendous amount of public funds that are being wasted by the common agricultural policy. Will the Government seek to bring about a fundamental reform of the CAP as a priority in their discussions in Europe?

In discussing the Community's long-term financial structure we consider that the first priority is to ensure that there is a proper check on the growth in spending on agriculture.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will restate his objectives for European Community reforms in 1983 in light of the Council of Ministers meetings on 21 and 22 March.

We have put forward proposals for developing European Community policy over the whole range of its activities. These include 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 for an energy strategy, for a lasting solution to the Community's budget problem and for extending the regional and social policies. Our objectives have not changed as a result of the most recent meeting of the European Council, though progress was made towards achieving them.

Will my right hon. Friend give a rather fuller explanation of the rebate issue, which is pretty vital for Britain when we consider that Britain, in the absence of a rebate, will have to pay about £1,500 million net, which is about £5 million a day? Is it not serious if the Council of Ministers agrees that we should get a rebate fixed in June, yet the chairman of the Commission announces yesterday in Strasbourg that the Commission is not bound by the recommendation of the Commission? What do we do if we do not get a rebate from our extraordinarily large net contribution?

Last month we received a rebate of £568 million for 1982, and more is to come. As I have announced, the European Council agreed that the United Kingdom refund would be included in the budget for 1984. There is a commitment to solve the immediate problem by June and I believe that that will be adhered to as an interim solution until a permanent one can be found.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that we are as far away as ever from a permanent solution to the budgetary problem? Is it not true that, during our period of membership, we have handed over £4 billion, which shows that we are being greatly exploited by our richer neighbours? Why, in equity, should we make any contribution? Why, as one of the poorer members, should we not be a net beneficiary, as most other member countries are?

Had it not been for the negotiations that have been carried out by the Government, the rebates that we have received recently would not have been received. That was the situation that we inherited from the Labour Government. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about our being further away than ever from a lasting solution, precisely because, as a result of action that has been taken by the European Parliament, the Council has now decided to go for a lasting solution. That has always been the British objective. We are, therefore, much nearer to attaining it than before, so I disagree with the hon. Gentleman.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first objective for reform in the EC is for the EC at all levels, from the summit downwards, to begin to consider foreign affairs problems as a first priority and to turn its attention once again to the problems in the middle east? It is one thing to blame Israel or the PLO, but does he agree that an international approach is now essential if we are to stop the descent into war, or terrorism, which might occur if an initiative is not taken in Europe?

The political co-operation within the Community recently has been one of its most successful achievements. We have made statements or declarations about the middle east several times. Most recently, the European Council published the conclusions of our discussions on the subject, which were international. We use the influence of the Community as best we can on issues of that kind. We regret that, so far, we have not been successful in reaching a solution to that problem, which we believe would be in the best interests of the Palestinian people. However, the co-operation for which my hon. Friend asks is definitely present.

As the interim agreement has meant that the European Parliament has now decided how we should spend the money that we get back from the European budget, will the right hon. Gentleman consider my party's commitment as it was recently expressed in our policy document, which, I understand, a Minister threw across the Floor. I hope that he will read it. In it we say clearly:

"British withdrawal from the Community is the right policy for Britain—to be completed well within the lifetime of the parliament."

I think that the hon. Gentleman is on to an election loser there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with progress over the negotiations for the entry into the European Community of Spain and Portugal; and if he will make a statement.

Reasonable progress has been made in the accession negotiations with both Spain and Portugal, bearing in mind the scale and complication of the problems. The European Council of 21 and 22 March made some progress in respect of arrangements for olive oil, fruit and vegetables and invited Agriculture Ministers to take early decisions on these matters. There will be a ministerial conference with Spain in the margins of the 25 and 26 April Foreign Affairs Council and with Portugal in the margins of the 24 May Foreign Affairs Council.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever economic or political difficulties may raise their heads from time to time, Britain's paramount concern should be the political cohesion of western Europe? Does he agree that the best guarantee of that lies in the enlargement of the Community along these lines?

There are strong political reasons, which remain as strong as ever, for encouraging and making possible the accession of both Spain and Portugal.

What is the Government's response to Spanish protests about HMS Invincible and other units of the Fleet going to Gibraltar?

That issue does not arise on this question but, as the hon. Gentleman is anxious for news, I can tell him that we have made it clear to the Spaniards that it is quite normal for ships participating in Exercise Springtrain, which is an annual exercise, to visit Gibraltar.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that circumstances in Gibraltar are germane to the negotiations that are likely to take place? What can he do to bring home to the Spanish Government and, for that matter, the Spanish people, the point that childish and ill-tempered outbursts are likely to alienate Gibraltarians and that unless they make friends with the Gibraltarians we cannot do anything about it?

The restrictions on trade between Spain and Gibraltar are germane, it is the visit of the fleet which, I suggest, is not germane. It is inconceivable that Spain should join the Community while restrictions on ordinary traffic between Spain and Gibraltar remain. That was made clear to the Spanish Foreign Minister when he came here last month.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects progress on the budget of the European community.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox).

Does my right hon. Friend agree that President Mitterrand's support at that previous European summit for a fair and speedy settlement to Britain's budgetary problem this year was a welcome development? What steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that that support does not dissipate under the summer sun but is still strongly in evidence at the June summit?

As I said in reply to an earlier question, whereas until recently there was not a general desire to see that reform carried through, there is now such a general desire around the Council table, and I have no reason to suppose that it will not be maintained.

Is it not a fact that Britain always comes off second best in regard to the provision of money, whether it be in the tour de table talks or anywhere else? Is it not a fact that in the 10 years of Britain's membership of the EC our net contribution has been £3,911 million and that, despite all the talk about coming back from Brussels and Strasbourg with pots of money, more than 62 per cent. of that net contribution has been incurred in the past four years of this Thatcher Government?

In the past three years we have recovered at least two thirds of the money that we have paid out net. If it had not been for our negotiations with the Community and if matters had been left as they were under the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman supported, there would have been no rebates.

What type of change to the financial system is my right hon. Friend now prepared to accept?

Any system that irons out the imbalances and makes an arrangement that is fair to all members of the Community.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree with the Commission's document, which says:

"Any new developments of the Community's financing system should, in the Commission's view reflect and enhance the role of the directly elected European Parliament."?

The powers of the European Parliament will continue as they are for the time being. If they were to be altered, quite a few processes would have to be gone through before that could be achieved. We shall continue as we are throughout this year and until those arrangements are changed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what methods he uses to consult British Members of the European Parliament on matters affecting British interests within the European Community.

We keep in close touch with British Members of the European Parliament. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers, like Ministers in other Departments, have frequent meetings with them.

In view of the growing importance of the European Parliament, especially its budget, is my right hen. Friend satisfied that the relationship between the British delegation to the European Parliament and the House is as close and as trusting as it should be?

There may be exceptions, but on the whole the answer is yes.

Is it not manifest today and on other days that those who are both Members of Parliament and Members of the European assembly cannot participate fully in the work of this Parliament and cannot properly represent the interests of their constituents? Will he consider introducing legislation to prohibit the practice of dual representation?

No, Sir. That is a matter best left to the good sense of the electors.

Following recent discussions in the European assembly, may we be assured that Her Majesty's Government will defend the right of veto In the Council of Ministers for the protection of national interests?

Yes, Sir.