asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether further meetings such as that between the Minister of State and Mr. Farouk Qaddumi of the Palestine Liberation Organisation are planned.

There are no such meetings planned at present.

In view of the Palestine Liberation Organisation's rejection of the Israeli-Lebanese agreement at a recent meeting, will the Foreign Secretary now acknowledge that the PLO has no intention, through negotiations, to recognise the state of Israel as such? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the meeting was counter-productive? Furthermore, in view of the disposition of the PLO and its efforts to achieve its objectives by terrorism, is it not negative to arrange any further ministerial meetings?

No such further meetings have been arranged. I thought that the meeting would be helpful. It was a suggestion that we made some months before. It was possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to make it clear that the PLO had missed a golden opportunity of making progress with a peace plan.

Is it likely that the PLO will move in any way whatever towards recognition of Israel at a time when the Israelis seem to be daily announcing the expansion of settlements in Palestinian territory on the West Bank?

I think it is fair to say that in recent months and over the past year or so the PLO has, by implication, taken steps and made statements that were moving in the direction of that recognition. It has not made such a recognition yet, as we know, but the implication is that its thinking has been in that direction.

Did the Prime Minister approve of the meeting and, if so, when will she publicly say so?

Yes, of course.

What word would my right hon. Friend use to describe the behaviour of the Israelis in Lebanon?

I made my position and that of the Government clear when Lebanon was invaded. It is a great relief to everybody, and certainly to the House, that agreement has been reached and that there will be a withdrawal.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives Her Majesty's Government and their European partners are taking to bring about a cessation of hostilities between Iran and Iraq, especially in view of the fact that there is an escalation of the war.

We deeply regret the continuation of the war between Iran and Iraq, and the further loss of life. As I told the hon. Member on 9 March, we do not at present see any direct role for ourselves or the European Ten to play. However, we certainly remain ready to support any effort that has a realistic hope of bringing an early and negotiated end to the conflict.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that civilians are being killed and that vast areas are being polluted because of the dispute? Does he not think that he and his European allies could have done more than they have bothered to do to bring this disastrous conflict to an early close?

We want to bring the conflict to an end. In addition to what the hon. Gentleman said, I have seen today reports of a serious statement by the International Committee of the Red Cross yesterday about the treatment of prisoners held by both sides. If confirmed, that is serious. I entirely agree that if we could see a way in which, realistically, we could be of help in bringing this conflict to an end, we would take it.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in view of the poor record of human rights both in Iran and Iraq and the tremendous suffering of the people there as a result, there is no justification for supplying arms to either side in this struggle? The right hon. Gentleman has already said that no lethal weapons will be supplied. Will he make it clear that we shall not supply any components for lethal weapons? Will he also approach some of our allies to try to persuade them not to supply arms to this area of conflict?

I have told the hon. Gentleman in the past that we have not supplied lethal equipment to either side. That remains the position today. The suggestion in the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question would not lead us far.

I agree with the Minister's reference to the reports in today's press about the Red Cross statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is almost unprecedented for an organisation such as the Red Cross to make a direct accusation against both sides in a conflict? Will he make sure that the Government press as hard as possible on both sides to act in accordance with the Geneva convention and that the Red Cross is backed up in all the work that it is doing?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We urge both sides of the conflict to honour their clear obligation under the Geneva convention about the treatment of prisoners of war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with representatives of the Government of the United States of America.

I shall have an opportunity to meet members of the American Administration on a number of occasions in the next few months. The topics to be discussed will naturally depend on the forum and the circumstances at the time, but I expect that they will include East-West relations, arms control, the middle east, the world economy and matters affecting our bilateral trade.

If the Secretary of State gets the chance to meet representatives of the United States Government before he is sacked by the British people on 9 June, will he tell President Reagan that an increasing number of people in Britain and elsewhere are utterly opposed to the intervention of the United States Government in the affairs of Central American independent states, especially to the continuing supply of arms to the Government of El Salvador and the CIA-inspired plot to invade and destabilise Nicaragua?

The hon. Gentleman speaks for himself. I have discussed the subject with the Secretary of State. The Government support the United States Government's objectives in Central America.

Early in the next Parliament, when my right hon. Friend will have the opportunity to meet United States representatives on behalf of the British Government, will he suggest that one of the best contributions that the United States can make to peace in the middle east is to stop the supply of all arms to Israel until it stops colonising the West Bank?

My hon. Friend's latter point is a matter for the United States and its relationship with Israel. I have made clear to the United States the British Government's view on this difficult and drawn-out dispute. We are extremely pleased that Secretary of State Shultz achieved agreement a few days ago. We must hope that, in the near future, that will develop into the withdrawal that was there negotiated. As for the rest, I remain anxious about the way in which negotiations are going in the middle east, but when there is progress such as we saw a few days ago, we are thankful. We must build on it to achieve a better outcome in the future.

Having dithered over the date of the general election, why is the Prime Minister now dithering about attendance at Williamsburg? Is she prepared to be the only head of a Western Government who will not be at Williamsburg? If she refuses to go, is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition are ready to substitute for her?

That is a subject that I have not discussed with the Secretary of State. In view of her decision about the general election, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will come to a conclusion about Williamsburg in the fairly near future.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although the Government welcome the concept of parity in warheads in the INF negotiations, which has been broadly welcomed by the United States Administration, he will make it clear to the United States Administration yet again that he, on behalf of the British Government, like the French Government, does not regard British strategic nuclear forces as negotiable.

I agree with my hon. Friend's latter point. Although I have explained several times in public and, I think, in the House that in certain circumstances we would be prepared to consider that matter again, we are not so prepared in present circumstances. On my hon. Friend's first point, the Kremlin's decision to talk in terms of warhead numbers is a move for which NATO has been arguing for a long time. To that extent I welcome that statement, but there are other elements in it that are quite unacceptable.

In view of that answer, will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the American Administration that we are prepared, if necessary, to avoid a hold-up in the INF negotiations in Geneva and START, to offer our strategic weapons as part of the balance that must be considered in those multilateral disarmament negotiations?

No, Sir, and there is no hold-up in either of those important disarmament talks. Indeed, the most far-reaching suggestions have come from the Alliance in both the INF negotiations and START. If progress is made there and there are clear signs that, far from a sustained build-up of nuclear and conventional military equipment in the Soviet Union, they pursue a policy of genuine reduction of arms on both sides, especially between the two super powers, the British Government would be prepared to reconsider their stance. However, it is clear from the rigid and sustained no that we get from Moscow in both talks that we are some way away for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about current British relations with Nicaragua.

We have full diplomatic relations with Nicaragua and are keeping under review the possibility of reopening our permanent representation there. Meanwhile, frequent visits are made to Nicaragua by the ambassador and other members of our embassy in Costa Rica who are accredited to the Nicaraguan Government. The substance of our relations with Nicaragua would be improved by greater evidence from the Nicaraguan side of respect for democratic freedoms and the need to promote peace and stability in the region.

Is the Secretary of State aware that British anxiety about American involvement in Nicaragua extends to worries about what is happening to British citizens in that country? Will he tell us how many British citizens are involved, what advice has been given to them and who our representatives on these matters are?

The visits to which I have referred provide a way in which we can keep in touch with the Nicaraguan Government on these matters. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman specific figures today, but we constantly represent our anxieties about the mistreatment of minorities and religious groups in that country. We strongly hope for a move towards greater democracy.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attention that Opposition parties direct towards other Central American states with regard to democratic freedoms and human rights could equally well be directed towards Nicaragua? Does he agree that no elections have been held there, that no promise of elections is being fulfilled, that the rights of the press are being extinguished, that the rights of the Meskito Indians are being suppressed and that human rights in Nicaragua leave a great deal to be desired, whereas the elections in El Salvador have been completely ignored by the Opposition?

And hundreds of people are being killed every week.

I agree with my hon. Friend's assessment. We support the objectives that President Reagan is pursuing. They are in support of democracy, reform, human freedom, attention to human rights, continued help for economic development and other matters.

Would it not be helpful if the Foreign Secretary were to go to Nicaragua, as I have done, to see what is happening for himself rather than rely on tittle tattle from his hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the American Government? If the Foreign Secretary shares President Reagan's objectives, does he also share his view that the counter-revolutionaries who are operating from Honduras against Nicaragua, who are armed and financed by the United States, trained in the United States and consist essentially of ex-Somosan guardsmen, are to be considered as freedom fighters?

The activities on the borders of Honduras with Nicaragua and El Salvador are ones that the Central American region would be far better without. That is clear. We know that there is a struggle in Nicaragua and that that country is governed by a regime which leaves a great deal to be desired.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any further progress has been made towards a successful outcome to the intercommunal talks in Cyprus.

The intercommunal talks went into recess on 14 April. There are no developments to report since my answer to the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race) on 13 April.

As the intercommunal talks have now been dragging on for years without any obvious signs of progress, does the Minister agree that, if there is to be an end to the troubles of that divided island, there must be a new initiative, which ought to come from the British Government as they are one of the guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus.

The General Assembly of the United Nations has begun to discuss Cyprus again. We hope that that debate, and any words or actions by anyone, will help the United Nations intercommunal talks, because they, rather than separate initiatives, offer the best hope.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large share of the blame for the partition of the island and for the Turkish intervention lies with the complete failure of the British Government at that time to live up to their responsibilities as a guarantor power? Should we not take more positive action, either individually or through the European Community, because it is clear that nothing will happen through the United Nations?

We have considered that possibility from time to time. It is not sensible to try to apportion the blame for the past. We are anxious to have practical progress and we are clear that although Mr. Gobbi and the secretary-general of the United Nations have not achieved results, they have made some progress. That is the best hope for the future.

Is the Minister aware of the recent attempts of the Turkish Administration to stop the lawfully-elected Greek Cypriot delegate attending the Council of Europe meeting? Will he watch closely the efforts of the junta in Ankara to stop people attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, outline clearly the position in Cyprus and tell the Council of Europe who is causing the delay in any meaningful progress in the intercommunal talks?

I was in Strasbourg that day and I heard several accounts of what happened. This is clearly a matter for the Council of Europe and its assembly. During that meeting in Strasbourg the Greek and Turkish Foreign Ministers talked together, which is a hopeful sign.

The visit next week by the President of Cyprus would have provided an opportunity for a fresh initiative, or at least for some progress in the intercommunal talks. Since that visit has become a casualty of this panic run to the ballot box, however, what steps will be taken during the next four weeks to make progress with the talks?

I have already answered that question. We are sorry that we must postpone President Kyprianou's visit and we hope that he will come here as soon as possible.

Will the Minister constantly bear in mind that the many thousands of Greek Cypriots who live in my constituency will continue to resent deeply the fact that they were deprived of their homes and their land by the Turkish invaders? Will the Minister assure the House that it will remain a constant high priority of the Government to bring pressure to bear wherever they can to reach a speedy and just settlement?

That is a fair statement. One must choose one's instruments and the process that offers the best chance of success, and not dodge from one method to another.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he intends to meet his ASEAN counterparts; and what they expect to discuss.

I met my ASEAN counterparts at the fourth European Community and ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting in Bangkok at the end of March. No date for the next meeting has yet been set. Meanwhile, we maintain contact through diplomatic channels and I would expect to meet a number of my ASEAN colleagues individually during the year. Discussions normally cover a wide range of subjects, including the circumstances in Cambodia.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the five members of ASEAN regard their membership of that organisation as importantly as we regard our membership of the European Community? In view of what he said about Kampuchea and the United Nations resolution sponsored by ASEAN, which almost the entire world, with the exception of the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese clients, supports, what further steps will he take to support the re-establishment in Cambodia of a Cambodian Government led by Prince Sihanouk?

I agree with my hon. Friend that ASEAN is an important and effective organisation. It is also a defence organisation in a way that the European Community is not. It was a successful meeting and it was useful for both regional groups to meet. I am constantly exploring with our allies and friends the best way to restore to Cambodia the life and circumstances that we would all wish.

How does the right hon. Gentleman's profession of support for democracy and respect for human rights accord with his support for representatives of the Khymer Rouge, which had an appalling record of genocide in Cambodia, remaining in the United Nations organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to discuss with ASEAN the appalling nature of that regime and the fact that no organisation should support the Khymer Rouge in future?

The countries of ASEAN have an extremely difficult problem with the Vietnamese forces in Cambodia. We had a long discussion about the matter, and ASEAN believes that the coalition that now exists will help that country to make progress. It is correct, as the hon. Gentleman says, that the Khmer Rouge is part of that coalition, but all the members of ASEAN, which are the countries most immediately affected by the crisis, believed that to be a helpful move. We supported it for that reason.

Does my right hon. Friend know that the Foreign Secretary of Thailand, whose Government have recently been returned triumphantly at the polls, now feels strong enough to consider visiting Hanoi to make direct contact with Vietnam and to discuss Kampuchea? If his mission is supported in general by ASEAN, as he believes it will be, will my right hon. Friend give the support of the Government and, if possible of Europe, to that initiative?

My hon. and learned Friend has raised an important point. There is the possibility of such a development, and we are considering it with our allies. At first sight it would appear to be a helpful move, and I know that the Thai Foreign Minister is considering it carefully.

If the Foreign Secretary is searching for ways to achieve a solution in Kampuchea, would he not do better to consider the resolutions passed at the recent non-aligned conference in New Delhi, which were at least welcomed by the Foreign Ministers of the three countries in Indo-China at the conference of 12 April, who did not reject them, as they did the resolution that was mentioned earlier?

As is often the case with such resolutions, even if they are taken by the non-aligned movement—which consists of some members that could scarcely be called non-aligned—they do not on the whole produce solutions to problems that are as difficult as those of Cambodia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the question of religious and cultural freedom in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was discussed during the recent visit of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) to Moscow.

During my recent talks in Moscow I reiterated our concern at the Soviet human rights performance and raised several individual cases.

I am sure that the House is grateful for that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the continuing repression of religious and cultural freedom, especially of the Christian and Jewish communities, in the Soviet Union is a major obstacle to any chance of improving relations between the Soviet Union and Great Britain? Is not the failure of the Soviet Union to fulfil the human rights aspects of the Helsinki agreement cause for concern about its ability or intention to adhere to the rest of that agreement?

My hon. Friend is correct. The Soviet human rights record has deteriorated sharply in recent months. Only this afternoon I was visited by the sister of a Soviet dissident, Mr. Yevdokimov, who has been sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and internal exile for activities which in a normal country would not be considered illegal or unacceptable. It is an unfortunate example of disrespect for human rights.

Is the Minister aware that we welcome the fact that he has taken up those matters in the Soviet Union? Does he agree that the Soveiet Union does itself no good by its continued repression of Christians, Jews and other dissidents? Does he also agree that if our representations are to be more effective we should be seen in the world to be even-handed in criticising violations of human rights in Central America and Chile and other countries, and not just in countries behind the Iron Curtain?

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support for the representations being made about human rights violation in the Soviet Union. The Government, like previous Governments, are concerned with human rights violations wherever they occur.

Was my hon. Friend able to explain to the Russians that the excuse that Communism can admit no deviation without itself falling apart is not sufficient for the Western world to be able to devote any credence to their signature on any treaty?

My hon. Friend's question is an indication of the basic insecurity that is felt by Soviet leaders, who are well aware of the unacceptability of their system to the vast majority of those who have the misfortune to live under it.

Bearing in mind Russia's well known tyranny over its own people, does my hon. Friend not think it strange that the Opposition should continue to ask us to trust it by pressing for one-sided nuclear disarmament?

It is extraordinary that the Opposition should have announced their intention unilaterally to disarm and then to have written to the Soviet Union to ask how it would respond to such a policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied that sufficient help and advice is available from the consular service to United Kingdom citizens when their relatives die abroad.

Yes, Sir. Our consuls abroad provide whatever practical help and advice they can to relatives and friends of the deceased—for example, by putting them in touch with the police and local authorities. They will also provide a list of local lawyers, names of suitable interpreters, and give advice about local burial, cremation, or repatriation of the remains. It is, however, for the local police to investigate any suspicious circumstances concerning the death.

Has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office not read the "Helen Smith Story"? Does the Minister not realise that Ron Smith became concerned because of the obstruction of officials of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Should it not be the task of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to investigate deaths of United Kingdom Citizens abroad rather than leave the task to the persistence and determination of parents, as happened in the Helen Smith case?

Mr. Smith received a great deal of advice and help from consular staff in Saudi Arabia, who accompanied him on visits to the police and provided interpretation, transport and accommodation at the embassy. The hon. Gentleman should be aware that local investigations of a crime must be the responsibility of the police of the country concerned, and that any assistance given by other countries can be provided only with the agreement and co-operation of the country primarily concerned.

As there are reports that the Federal Government of Germany have re-established their consular service in Windhoek, Namibia, and as we have British premises in that city and country, is it not time that the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs was asked to reconsider his decision not to appoint British representatives, so that we may be better informed and so that British interests can be better protected?

Our ability to establish and maintain consular offices in various parts of the world demands a series of considerations to be undertaken. These include resource considerations and other wider matters.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response the Government will make in the disarmament negotiations to the Soviet statement that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics will not use nuclear weapons against states which will not themselves make or harbour them.

A Soviet statement to this effect was first made in 1978. It clearly implied a nuclear threat to the Alliance. The United Kingdom itself gave an assurance in the same year that we would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states which were parties to the non-proliferation treaty or a similar international agreement except if they attacked us, our forces, our dependent territories or our allies in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. It would be welcome if the Soviet Union would give a similar assurance in the current discussions on this issue in the committee on disarmament.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask NATO to make a reciprocal offer to eastern European countries and thus create a European non-nuclear zone?

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the clear declaration that was made by NATO, and reaffirmed as recently as last summer, that the Alliance would not use any weapons, nuclear or conventional, unless attacked. That is the most forthcoming statement of its kind that has been made. I think that I have explained the response that we gave to the issue raised in the hon. Gentleman's main question.

Would it not be the height of naivety to entrust the security and lives of the British people, not to the NATO Alliance and the independent deterrent, which has provided us with 38 years of peace with freedom, but instead to the good will and sense of honour of the men who from time to time may hold sway in the Kremlin, as the Labour party now proposes to do by its determination to end our independent deterrent and to cripple the ability of the United States to defend Western Europe by getting rid of nuclear bases in this country?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right.

Why should the reaction of the Soviet Union and the Soviet people to the deployment of cruise missiles in Western Europe be any different from the reaction of the American people and the American Government to the possible deployment of nuclear missiles in states in Central America?

I have often said that if we could reach the Soviet people in one way or another I feel certain that they would take the same view as the rest of us about nuclear weapons and disarmament generally. Unfortunately, they are not in a position to receive any messages except by permission of the Kremlin. That is one of the great weaknesses of the present situation. If we could get through democratically to the Soviet people, I am certain that we would have arms redactions.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that Afghanistan does not harbour nuclear weapons has done nothing to stop the systematic slaughter by conventional weapons in which the Soviet Union has been engaged for years?

However horrendous and unacceptable nuclear weapons are, and they are, they have come into existence and they have not caused any deaths since the second world war. On the other hand, conventional weapons have caused millions of casualties, among them the casualties in Afghanistan. As everyone knows, that brutal invasion was entirely unjustified. To keep the Afghans in their place, 105,000 Soviet troops are required to be present in Afghanistan. It is a disgraceful episode in history.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's stance might be a little more persuasive if the Prime Minister did not so constantly resort to the stagnant language of the cold war? If the Government do not believe that our nuclear arms system should be counted within the INF talks, what objection is there to Britain making a contribution instead to START in respect of our own system?

The hon. Gentleman knows that our deterrent is considered by us and the Russians to be a strategic weapon. It is, however, only a minute part of the nuclear armoury of the super powers. It is the minimum force that can exist and be a credible and effective deterrent. Therefore, it cannot form part of START. As I said earlier today, and as I have said on other occasions, if there is a drastic change in the strategic situation and a willingness on the Russian side to reduce armaments, nuclear and conventional, which is put into effect, we would be prepared to consider our position.

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

Mr. Shultz's success in securing an agreement in principle between Israel and Lebanon is very welcome progress. I hope that the other parties concerned will also now agree to an early withdrawal of their forces from Lebanon.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Is he aware that, so long after the signing of the Camp David accord, there are still about 28 Egyptian civilians being held as prisoners of war in Israel? Will he keep a close eye on the fate of civilians and military personnel in Israeli hands in the Ansar camp, and generally in South Lebanon and Israel, try to ameliorate their conditions, and press for instant release?

My purpose is to endeavour to do whatever I can in that direction.

Will the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues answer properly the question put by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) about the supplying of component parts to the participants in the Iran-Iraq war? Does the rather opaque reply mean that we are supplying component parts? What is the difference between supplying lethal weapons and supplying component parts to enable the weapons to be used?

No illegal equipment is being sold to Iran.

I welcome my right hon. Friend's regard for the new agreement between America, Israel and the Lebanon, but is it not time that the House and the Foreign Office gave more praise to Israel for having settled a difficult problem and turned to the main obstruction to peace, which is the Syrian Government?

A substantial advance has been achieved, as I have said, and it is excellent that Lebanon and Israel have agreed to the new arrangement. We now want to see that the arrangement is put into practice and carried out as soon as it possibly can be, because that is the best way to establish a free and independent Lebanon.

rose—

Order. I shall allow a minute extra at the end of questions on the EC so as to allow in the Opposition Front Bench on this question.

What direct representations has the Foreign Secretary made, or does he contemplate making, to the Syrian Government in view of their implacable hostility to the concept of withdrawing simultaneously with the Israelis?

I met the Syrian Foreign Minister in March, when he was here with the Arab League delegation, and I have been in touch with him since. He knows our views, and the hon. Gentleman and House will know that the Syrians are taking a hard line on this issue. However, it is our hope, as it is of the Secretary of State of the United States, that we shall secure an agreement with Syria so that the withdrawal that everybody wants can begin to take place.

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress towards reaching agreement on European Community finances.

The Commission last week published its proposals for the long-term reform of the Community's financing system. Foreign Ministers will discuss these proposals, and the solution of the immediate budgetary problem facing Britain, at their informal meeting on 14 and 15 May and at the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 May in accordance with the remit given by the European Council in March.

Does the Secretary of State agree that as we are going into the general election and as the future budget contributions are to be discussed at Stuttgart on 6 and 7 June, there will be no agreement on a permanent solution? Will he confirm that our net contribution to the budget since we joined has cost us £6 billion and that we have been contributing £1 million for every day since we have been in the Market?

Nobody thinks that there will be anything like an agreement on a long-term solution by the time of the Stuttgart meeting on 6 and 7 June. Everybody in the Community recognises that it will take a number of months to settle that. Progress has already been made, but the debate has only just begun and everybody recognises that it will take some time. For that reason, it is necessary to have separate arrangements for the United Kingdom budget in 1983. Discussions on that will begin informally at the weekend meeting to which I referred and will carry on in the Foreign Affairs Council on 24 May.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a commitment to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS could be helpful in enabling us to resolve our budgetary difficulties, quite apart from its other advantages?

That is debatable. A number of my hon. Friends and others believe that that would be helpful, but Her Majesty's Government have come to the conclusion that so far, at any rate, it would not be to our advantage to join.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Government's failure to secure a settlement of the agriculture budget is costing British farmers dearly with every passing week and that, in particular, the sheep farmers have already lost £600,000? When does the right hon. Gentleman expect to get the agriculture settlement fixed?

When everybody agrees. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been fighting a doughty battle in the interests of Britain and, had it not been for him, I have no doubt that there would have been an even more expensive settlement than the one that we shall get when he finally achieves agreement. I have every confidence that he will achieve agreement.

If, for some reason or another, in the next few weeks my right hon. Friend were to be challenged on our budget contribution, would he undertake to make clear, first, the massive distinction between the performance on the budget of the Labour party when in Government and that of this Government, and, secondly and most importantly, that unlike the Labour party, this party has made a purpose of working within Europe to get agreements along the line for this country, and has not run away from its responsibilities?

My hon. Friend makes a valid distinction between the two parties and their approach to this difficult problem. Had it not been for my predecessor, the noble Lord Carrington, and the Prime Minister, I do not think that we should have been able to negotiate a refund of over £2,000 million in the lifetime of this Parliament. That is a much better position than would otherwise have existed and is certainly much better than that which we inherited from our predecessors.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that on every occasion that my right hon. and hon. Friends attempted to get a better deal they were attacked by the then Opposition Front Bench? We were accused by the Tory party of being too abrasive and undermining Britain's position in the Common Market. The difference between the two Governments is that on any occasion on which this Government have tried to make some progress they have received the full support of the Opposition. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister said that she would get an agreement by June? Is it not clear that there will not be an agreement by June, and is it not a good idea for the right hon. Lady not to bother to go to Stuttgart but to wait until after the election, when we shall have won and can begin the process of getting out of the Community?

In the last Parliament when the Conservatives were in Opposition, we used to accuse the then Government, and the hon. Gentleman who was part of it, of getting nowhere when they went to Europe. They did not get anywhere. The hon. Gentleman talked of abrasiveness, but we have achieved an extremely helpful refund. As for the statement about the time of the Stuttgart Council, I can only remind the hon. Gentleman of the decision of the European Council in March at Brussels, which was that the European Council in Stuttgart in June would receive a report from the Foreign Affairs Council about progress made towards achieving a settlement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what main issues he expects to discuss at the European Community summit meeting in June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is submitting proposals to the Commission of the European Communities on the issues which are to be discussed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers early in June.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he expects to be raised at the next meeting of Community Heads of Government.

We expect Heads of Government to review economic and social developments in the Community as well as international economic and political developments, and to discuss the subjects set out in the conclusions of their March meeting, namely, the long-term financing of the Community and the solution of the United Kingdom budget problem for 1983 and later; the enlargement negotiations; youth unemployment; energy, research and development policy; completion of the internal market; and environmental questions. We have been in regular contact with the Commission on all these matters.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. Can he count on maximum support from Chancellor Kohl and other European leaders at the Stuttgart summit for himself and the Prime Minister? Is it not clear that if the Labour party were to win the election two days after that summit and if, Heaven forfend, the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) were to find himself in my right hon. Friend's shoes, this would lead to Britain's withdrawal from the Community, the break-up of the Ten and Britain becoming the most despised country in Europe?

Nobody knows how the Labour party—if it ever gets the chance, and I am doubtful that it will—would carry out its undertaking to withdraw this country from the Community. It would not find it very easy. Nor do we know how it would cope with the consequential loss of jobs and all the other resulting problems. My hon. Friend requires a good deal of imagination to think of the events of which he spoke.

As the Common Market may be discussed during the election campaign, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the net contribution for 1983 of about £1,200 million would be absolutely intolerable to the British Government and that we intend to get a fixed rebate agreed from 6 June?

It remains to be seen whether we achieve an agreement on 6 June. Naturally, Britain wishes to reach an agreement, as do our partners. We trust that it will happen. The Government are confident that a settlement will be reached that will be satisfactory to the House and to the British public.

If, in the discussions on these issues at the EC summit at Stuttgart on 6 and 7 June, there is no agreement on the cash rebate level to be paid to Britain from the massive sums that we have put in, will the Prime Minister risk a legal and constitutional confrontation with the EC by unilaterally withholding Britain's budget contributions, or will she continue to thump the table?

We are confident that we shall achieve an agreement with our partners that will make that unnecessary. That is what we are working towards.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on 6 June Britain will receive a rebate from the EC in excess of £500 million, which will bring the amount brought back to this country by the Government to £2·5 billion? Does he agree that the enlargement of the EC to include Portugal, and ultimately Spain, will place great strain on the finances of the EC and that that may cause further problems for Britain unless a proper budget arrangement is reached in the very near future?

On the first point, the payment that results from the agreement that is reached will come some time later. The payment would not be immediate. That has been the position for 1980, 1981, 1982 and will certainly be the case for 1983. My hon. Friend is correct on his second point. He stated one of the factors that inspired the Community to look for a fundamental change in the financing system and to go for a long-term solution that will iron out the problems. Spain and Portugal's applications to join the Common Market are incentives for examining such a fundamental issue, as they will have to be accommodated one way or another. It is clear to everybody that a revised, financial system will be necessary.

Does the Secretary of State not think that Britain's position at the summit will be seriously undermined by the failure of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to produce a report on the future of the Falklands because of the deliberately obstructive tactics of certain Conservative hon. Members? Further, what part did the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have in inspiring such an obstructive tactic?

Those questions are not relevant to the topic under debate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approximate proportion of the regional and social funds of the European Community he expects will be allocated to Portugal after her entry into the Community.

It has been agreed in the accession negotiations that Portugal should join in the European regional development fund from accession, but the Community has yet to consider the question of its quota. It is not yet possible to provide even an approximate indication of what that will be. It is also difficult to make any estimate about the Portuguese share in the social fund.

Bearing in mind the great poverty in Portugal, is it not correct that, unless the budget is extended, nothing meaningful will be achieved through the regional and social fund to help the Portuguese? If the Government succeed in getting the financing aspect correct, why would they oppose the budget being subsequently increased?

None of the proposals that have been put forward provide an effective method of stemming the flow of resources into the agricultural sector, which the Government consider to be too great. Until that basic problem is courageously tackled the Government consider that the approach is bound to be defective.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the effects of the entry of Portugal on the regional and social fund, a simple and important question must be answered, namely, that however much that would cost, we in this country will never agree to an increase in the 1 per cent. VAT?

The Government do not believe that a case has been made out for an increase in the 1 per cent. VAT. The Government are still studying the Commission's proposals, which contain some new and interesting ideas. My right hon. Friend will propose a modulated VAT that rests to some extent on agriculture, and which the Government would see as a measure that took the place of part of the present VAT position.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to meet his counterparts in the Community to discuss future powers for the European Parliament.

No. The role of the European Parliament is covered by the Genscher-Colombo proposals which my right hon. Friend next expects to discuss with his Community colleagues at an informal meeting on 14 and 15 May. The declaration would not involve any change in the powers of the Parliament as laid down in the treaties.

Can my right hon. Friend speculate—although it is not his direct responsibility — why the Labour party is so terrified and scared of the European Parliament and its future development? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the European Parliament is encouraged and built up, rather than denigrated, that will help it to work with Britain for the greater good of all, including the Community? The House should have the confidence and courage to give Members of the European Parliament greater official access to this place. That would be of great help.

The last matter is not for me. The Government are in favour of encouraging the European Parliament and its Members to succeed in the job with the powers with which they are entrusted.

Will the Minister confirm that for any extra powers to be given to the European assembly a change is required in the treaties, in accordance with the appropriate procedures set out in them?

Yes, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position might be improved if the MEPs of both main parties concentrated on their activities in Strasbourg rather than on seeking seats at Westminster?

That is a matter for those individuals and for those who select and elect candidates.

As we have already handed over our trade and agricultural policies and much of our industrial policy to the Common Market commissioners, does the Minister agree that if the massive unemployment in this country is to be solved Britain must consider abandoning the Treaty of Rome and withdrawing from the EC?

It would be a strange way to tackle unemployment by putting at risk the enormous number of jobs that depend upon our access to the Community.

Will the Minister confirm that the essential purpose put forward by the founders of the European Community, and of our continuing membership of the European Community, is so to knit the peoples, the commonwealth of countries of Europe, together that never again will a world war start in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman is right. The Government will have an opportunity in the next few weeks to remind the public of that truth.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have widespread support for what he has just said about the European assembly restricting itself to its functions under the treaty? Would it not destroy itself, or at least its reputation, if it tried to do too much and discuss everything under the sun?

I have much sympathy with that remark. The European Parliament has functions and it has shown that it can exercise useful influence within those functions. If it tries to range too wide, it will undermine its reputation.

Will the Minister confirm that, even if a rebate on Britain's budget contribution is offered at Stuttgart, that sum will be subject to the approval of the European assembly?

All of these arrangements have to go through the normal procedures of the Community's institutions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation with Her Majesty's Government took place before the publication by the London office of the European Commission of the document "Why have a party" on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Community.

None. As the Lord President of the Council told my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on 28 March 1983, the European Parliament and the Commission are responsible for their own information programmes and are not required to consult member states about them.

Assuming that the Minister saw such a shoddy piece of propaganda, does he not think that the paucity of information that it contains about the alleged benefits that Britain is supposed to have received during the past 10 years of membership illustrates the poverty of the benefit that we have received?

I have seen the publication. It contains many pretty pictures. I am not responsible for its editorial content. The Government have circulated their own material in recent months on this subject. If the hon. Lady studies that material, I am sure she will agree that it is balanced and constructive.

Does it not worry my right hon. Friend that so much taxpayers' money—several million pounds—is being spent on putting forward debatable arguments on an important political issue? Might there not be a case for getting the European assembly, the Commission and Governments together to try to reach some sensible arrangement, such as we have in Britain, whereby taxpayers' money is used only to put forward the facts, not political opinions?

The Commission and the Parliament have their budgets, which are examined in advance. However, once they are approved it is for those institutions to decide how the money is used.

In connection with this publication, will the Minister reconfirm that Europe is now Britain's largest trading partner? Will he stress that withdrawal from the EC would constitute an economic disaster for this country?

Of course that is right, and with the help of many people in several parties we shall be able to ram that point home.

Are not the Government backing such shoddy documents as "Why have a party" by failing to tell the truth about the Common Market, which is that it has cost us more than £6 billion—the majority of which has been paid during this Government's period of office? Is it not also the case that our membership has led to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in this country, and that we shall regenerate the economy only by gaining control over our economy, which we cannot do while we are still in the Common Market?

We take every opportunity to point out the truth, without exaggeration, which is that we are now beginning to make a success of British membership of the Community and that employment and investment prospects, quite apart from our political influence in the world, would suffer irreparable damage if we were to put that process into reverse.