asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what subjects he intends to discuss with representatives of the United States Government at his next meeting with them; and whether he intends to visit Washington for this purpose.

The subjects for discussion at my right hon. and learned Friend's next meeting with representatives of the United States Government will depend on the circumstances at the time. There is a wide range of international and bilateral questions of common interest. My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans to visit Washington in the near future.

Does the Minister accept that there is no dearth of subjects for discussion with either the American Secretary of State or the President? Does he also accept that the belligerent attitude being adopted on a world scale by the United States is regarded by millions of people throughout the globe as very dangerous for all mankind? Will the Foreign Secretary discuss with the President the position in the Lebanon and Central America? Will he try to persuade the President, through his Secretary of State, to adopt a less belligerent posture and on no account to attack those countries, because many people will he dragged into the maelstrom if the United States does anything so silly?

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no dearth of common interests and subjects for discussion with the United States.

rose—

Order. I appeal to hon. Members to ask shorter supplementary questions.

In spite of the regrettable differences of opinion that we have had with the United States Administration on several matters in recent days, will my hon. Friend confirm that Her Majesty's Government still attach first importance to developing and maintaining our very close relationship with the United States within the NATO Alliance?

I am pleased to confirm that that is the Government's position. I am certain that that view is shared on the other side of the Atlantic. Most hon. Members are ready to recognise the immense contribution that the Alliance has made to maintaining peace and security in western Europe. I am convinced that it will continue to do so.

Whatever may be the necessity for our close alliance with the United States, does the Minister accept that many people are extremely alarmed by the recent trigger-happy response of the American President? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if action is taken against any South American countries or the Lebanon the United Kingdom Government should not be seen to support such adventures? Does the Minister also agree that President Reagan should be informed that international diplomacy requires a more sophisticated approach than telling the Russians to be out of town before sundown?

I can only repeat the gist of the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). The clear objective of the United States in Central America is to establish economic progress and peace. The same objectives apply to the Lebanon. The United States is aware that Britain shares those objectives. Our views on the conduct of international diplomacy have been well expressed to the United States Government.

When my right hon. and learned Friend is having discussions with the American Administration, will he join the people of Grenada in welcoming their liberation from the oppressive regime under which they suffered? Will he, at the same time, make plans with the United States Administration to support and aid economically the establishment of a democratic Government in Grenada, which will serve its people in a democratic way?

We certainly recognise that the effect of the situation in Grenada is to provide an opportunity for the re-establishment of constitutional democracy. Her Majesty's Government stand ready to help in that process.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reciting so eloquently the products of the Foreign Office word processor which, in an earlier incarnation, he helped to construct.

I regret that the right hon. Gentleman has turned his word processor back and no longer advances the views about the importance of the American contribution to which we were accustomed when he was in government.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his attempt to turn my phrase, but licking the United States' boots is no recipe for good relations between the United Kingdom and America, which I support as much as, I hope, he does.

Licking United States' boots was not a phrase used by the right hon. Gentleman last week when we were under attack for failing not only to lick boots but to agree with the American action in Grenada. The Government are very clear on that. Distinguished though he is, the right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. In earlier years he expressed great loyalty and support for the United States. His new manifestation is a matter for regret.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what was discussed on the Minister of State's recent visit to Jordan, Egypt and Israel.

I returned yesterday from a visit to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. I met Mr. Shamir, King Hussein and President Mubarak and other leaders in all three countries and in the occupied territories. My discussions covered a wide range of topics, above all the situation in the middle east and our bilateral relations.

Did those Governments have the impression that we were following United States policy, or European policy, in the Middle East? If they had the impression that we were following American policy, with all its twists, turns and contortions, what did the Minister do to disabuse them?

I am resolutely following a British policy. In my discussions I was concerned to assess how the various parties felt that we could best give renewed vigour to make progress in the Arab-Israeli dispute and the Lebanese problem and to learn how this country could be most constructive. I believe that the discussions were most useful.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation in the middle east is so dangerous that no short-term measures are adequate? If so, does he accept that the time has come to try to sponsor a meeting to discuss a comprehensive long-term settlement based on the principle of the Venice declaration?

I agree about the great dangers of the situation in the Middle East. I believe that the Arab-Israeli problem is stagnating. Stagnation breeds despair and despair breeds violence. Therefore, there are great dangers in the long term not just for the Israelis but for the Arab countries and, above all, for the Palestinians. Both Israel and the Palestinians have so much at stake that it is important for us, so far as possible in conjunction with our European partners and with the other parties to the dispute in the middle east, to do all that we positively can to help.

Did the Minister and the three leaders that he met agree that, unless and until Syria is prepared to leave the Lebanon, there is no hope for peace in that country? Did he discuss the prospects of Syria agreeing to leave in the same way as Israel has agreed to go and the United States, France and Britain would be only too delighted to go?

I discussed the problems of the Lebanon with all the parties. I must strongly restate that there is no shadow of doubt but that for peace and stability in the Lebanon it is essential that all forces withdraw. The Israeli Government gave an assurance that it was their priority to do that. I hope that they will fulfil that obligation and withdraw as soon as possible. However, the view of all contributors to the multinational force is that it is essential for all forces to withdraw from the Lebanon as soon as possible.

Did my hon. Friend's discussions with King Hussein lead him to the view that the prospects for progress on the West Bank issue have deteriorated in recent months? If so, does he agree that the subjection of the PLO by the Syrian Government effectively revokes the Rabat agreement so that the way is now much clearer for King Hussein to play a more active and positive role in finding a solution to that vexed and continuing problem?

I sensed considerable despair in Jordan and elsewhere about the present stagnation in the middle east. We all noted the violence taking place between Syria and elements of the PLO. We acknowledge that the position is uncertain, and we do not know what will be the result. Above all, we agreed that, in addition to the important consideration of the security of Israel, a primary consideration is the position of the Palestinians, their future and their right to self-determination.

I congratulate the Minister on his answer to the first supplementary question on this topic. I hope that it will inspire Government policy from now on. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) on reciting a planted question with brilliant aplomb.

During my visit to Israel and the West Bank, I had a most useful dialogue with the leaders of the Israeli Government. I attach the highest importance to routine dialogue at ministerial level.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what terms the United States Government have pressed Her Majesty's Government to enter into negotiations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

We regularly discuss the Falkland Islands and Argentina with the United States Government. The details of such exchanges must remain confidential.

If the Americans sell arms to Buenos Aires, what will the Government do?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has frequently made clear our views about the prospect of arms sales to Argentina. Should that step be taken, which is subject to Congress approval, it would be viewed with the greatest concern in Britain.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be sensible if we said to America, "If you do not sell arms to Argentina, we shall not sell arms to Cuba"?

No, Sir.

Now that there is a democratic Government in Argentina, will the Government seek to normalise our relations with that country? Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be the first step in seeking a permanent solution to the Falklands problem?

It is certainly our wish to normalise relations with Argentina and we must hope that, as democratic representatives, those who are about to assume power in that country will acknowledge the right of the Falkland Islanders to live in peace and security under a Government of their choosing.

Mr. Alfonsin has explicitly ruled out the use of force to recover the Falklands. Does that not mean a completely new turn, with new opportunities in our relations with Argentina? Is there not a real danger, if the Government do not respond positively to the new civilian Government who will take office on 10 December, that we shall become totally isolated in the face of world opinion if we stubbornly continue with the policy of fortress Falklands, when this new opportunity for a positive dialogue has been presented by the elections in Argentina?

The hon. Gentleman's observations are premature. Mr. Alfonsin is not yet President of Argentina, and several conflicting reports have been heard from the leadership of the Radical party. We must wait to see the developments in the new Argentine Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his conversations with the Spanish Foreign Minister on the subject of Gibraltar in New York on 26 September.

Both at this meeting and at a previous meeting in Madrid on 6 September each side explained its position on Gibraltar. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Senor Moran agreed to maintain contact through diplomatic channels, and to aim for a further meeting in early December, when they both expect to attend the North Atlantic Council in Brussels. The British Government wish to see the earliest possible normalisation of relations between Gibraltar and Spain. We believe that the 1980 Lisbon agreement is the best way to achieve this, and we remain ready to implement it.

Based on the Lisbon agreement, and as a result of the two conversations mentioned by my hon. Friend, does he see any prospect of a little further progress in bringing normality to the border, consistent always with the firm intention that nothing will be imposed upon the Gibraltarians that is contrary to their wishes?

As my hon. Friend recognises, we do not intend to do anything against the wishes of the Gibraltarians. We regret the continued delay, but we hope to eliminate the obstacles to progress and the implementation of the Lisbon agreement.

When my right hon. and learned Friend met the Spanish Foreign Minister on the previous occasion, did he discuss the proposal by the Spanish Government to complete the dockyard at La Linea de la Concepcion in the bay of Gibraltar? If so, did he tell the Foreign Minister that that would have a devastating effect on the proposed commercialisation of the dockyard in Gibraltar?

I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that such discussions between my right hon. and learned Friend and Senor Moran must remain confidential. The Government and the management of the company in charge of the Gibraltar project are aware of the La Linea proposal, but it does not affect the appraisal of the dockyard's commercial viability.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Polish Government on the effect on the Polish people of martial law; and if he will make a statement.

We welcomed the lifting of martial law in Poland on 22 July and the passage of an amnesty law. We expressed the hope then that the Polish authorities would use that opportunity to meet the aspirations for renewal and reform repeatedly and clearly expressed by the Polish people.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I am sure he is aware of the warm welcome expressed on both sides of the House for the award of the Nobel peace prize to Lech Walesa, but will he join me in regretting the heavy harassment to which he continues to be subjected, as are all those who are unpopular with the regime in Poland despite the ending of martial law, notably the two priests, Father Jankowski of Gdansk and Father Popieluszko of Warsaw? Can the Government do anything about that?

The House recognises that the award presented to Mr. Walesa reflects the respect and admiration that the world holds for his contribution to Poland. I have no doubt that the future of Poland cannot be resolved without a role being made available for Mr. Walesa, since he represents such a substantial body of Polish opinion.

The Labour party also welcomes the lifting of martial law in Poland. Does the Minister find no embarrassment in his support, not only for the banned trade union Solidarity, but for the Trade Union Bill in Britain which will shackle the trade union movement?

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that not only does the Government's Trade Union Bill have the support of the vast majority of trade unionists, but that millions of Polish trade unionists would be delighted to have a fraction of the freedoms that British trade unions have had for more than a century.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress Her Majesty's Government are making towards the achievement of peace in the middle east.

We are deeply concerned at the lack of progress in solving the acute problems of the middle east. It must be for the parties themselves to take the lead in finding solutions, but we are doing all that we can to help. We will continue to work for a just and comprehensive settlement to the Arab-Israeli dispute. We are supporting all efforts to bring about national reconciliation and the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon, and we are ready to play a constructive role in bringing an end to the Iran-Iraq war.

The entire House hopes for the success of the Geneva peace talks. Nevertheless, although they are vital to the future of the Lebanon, they do not address themselves to the core of the middle east problem, which is the right of the Palestinians to self-determination. What positive action do the Government intend to take, at United Nations level, European level or any other level, to tackle the core of the middle east problem?

As I said, it is for the parties involved to take the lead in resolving the Arab-Israeli dispute. They must live with it day by day, but we stand ready as a Government, and in conjunction with the Community, to do whatever we can to help. We strongly support the Venice declaration of 1980, and we believe that the Reagan plan is the best basis upon which to move forward. I found considerable support for that proposal. We shall be as active as possible in trying to obtain some progress in the matter.

When my hon. Friend met the three middle eastern leaders, did he make it clear that the Government support the 17 May agreement between Israel and the Lebanon which was negotiated by our American allies?

We accept that this agreement was entered into by two independent Governments—the Lebanese and the Israeli Governments—and the security of the state of Israel is a fundamental and critical point for them. These matters will be discussed at Geneva. It would not be helpful to say anything else now.

Do the Government understand that self-determination is meaningless apart from territory?

If the right to self-determination for the Palestinians is not fulfilled, in whatever way the parties involved agree, the Arab-Israeli dispute will continue. There will be more violence, and that will be contrary to the interests of not only Israel and the Arab countries, but Western countries.

Does my hon. Friend agree that neither retribution nor revenge is part of the role of the peacekeeping force? If so, does it not follow that if one element of a multinational force indulges in such activities the British contingent should be withdrawn?

I do not believe that it is right to contemplate the withdrawal of the British contingent. A separate question on the Lebanon will follow shortly, and it may be of more help if I reserve my comments on that matter until then. I do not think that retribution is the objective. Our objective is to seek, by whatever means possible, support for reconciliation in the Lebanese and other disputes, and all our efforts should be concentrated on that.

Will the Minister concede that the activities of the multinational force should be restricted to the Beirut area? Therefore, any activity by the United States to seek retribution should be strongly resisted by the British Government, who should tell the Americans that we are not in harmony with that desire?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday, multinational forces have an absolute right to self-defence. No one would deny that. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the mandate confines the terms of reference of the British contribution of 100 soldiers to Beirut city, the patrolling of that area and the guarding of the ceasefire commission.

I strongly support the general line outlined by my hon. Friend, but he said that we would stand by the Venice declaration. Does he recall that that suggested involving the PLO in future negotiations? Does that not seem somewhat unrealistic in present circumstances?

My right hon. Friend's question gives me the opportunity to state that the two cardinal principles in that declaration are what matter. The first is the absolute right of the state of Israel to exist within secure boundaries—something to which we are strongly committed. The second is our belief that a peaceful solution will not be achieved unless the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination. Those two points are of cardinal importance.

The Minister said that the best hope for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict lay within the Reagan plan. That view would be shared by the Israeli Labour Opposition. However, did any of the Israeli Government officials whom he met also subscribe to that view?

I discussed fully with the Israeli Government and the leaders of the Labour party in Israel their respective views about the position in the middle east and how we could move forward. It is not for me to interpret their views. However, I picked up a distinct variety of views within Israel as to how things should move forward. I attach the highest priority to a continuous and regular dialogue with the Israeli Government—and there is much that we have in common as well as that which divides us—but we have a strong difference of opinion about their settlement policy on the West Bank. I stated that strongly to the Israeli Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the Government's relationship with Grenada.

Our views on recent events in Grenada have been set out fully in my right hon. and learned Friend's statements of 24 and 25 October, in the debates in the House on 26 October and 3 November and by my noble Friend the Minister of State in the debate in another place on 1 November.

Bearing in mind the history of the tragic oppression of party democracy in Grenada since it was given independence, does my hon. Friend agree that the best role for the British Government in the difficult times ahead for that island is to encourage a return to genuine democracy and genuine elections and that we should do all we can to help those occur?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend. We stand ready to help the internal Administration as it emerges, and hope that we can offer aid. We shall certainly consider any recommendations on the supervision of elections, police advice, training and any other help.

When considering Grenada, will the Minister give full weight to our grave concern that the situation there is akin to a small war in which the two super-powers are playing a game of chess, in which one could take Grenada and the other Afghanistan? If this situation continues, we shall have precisely the situation as happened in 1962, when the special relationship with Prime Minister Macmillan was proved not to exist at all.

This is not a game between two super-powers. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the deep concern of the other eastern Caribbean states was also a factor. It is now important that all of us who are in any position to help should do so, so that we can restore democracy and peace to Grenada.

My hon. Friend has referred to various formal statements by the Government up to 3 November. Have the Government received, and will he comment on, some of the remarkable documents that have been published by the United States Government in evidence to the United States Congress? I refer particularly to one on 8 November, which I received this morning, which discloses an eight-page list of Soviet weaponry supplied to Cuba under a secret agreement reached at Managua.

As I have not seen the document, I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it is difficult for me to comment. There is now a great deal for all of us to discover about what was going on in Grenada in recent times.

With hindsight, does not my hon. Friend agree that it was wrong for the Government to sit on the fence over the intervention by the United States and the six eastern Caribbean countries? Is it not clear that the United States acted in the nick of time? Does not the number of armed, trained Cuban military personnel in Grenada at the time clearly show that they were there for a different purpose than the building of an airport? Furthermore, does not the amount of sophisticated arms indicate that Grenada was being turned into a colony of the Soviet Union for the subversion of Central and South America?

My hon. Friend's characterisation of the Government's position is unfair and I hope that on reflection he will agree. Our position was clear and was in line with that of other Governments in the Caribbean. We should now concentrate on building a democratic Grenada for the future.

Does the Minister accept that our relationships with Grenada cannot be normalised until the American troops withdraw from that Commonwealth country? Will he take action to require the American troops to withdraw before Congress invokes the War Powers Act to force them to withdraw? Does he also agree that, since the American invasion of Grenada, Ronald Reagan is the first United States President to be engaged in war activities in four places and on three continents—in Chad, Central America—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has continued long enough.

rose—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a long supplementary question and must therefore resume his seat.

rose—

Order.

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman considers the fact that it is now the duty of the Governor General and the interim Administration which emerges to deal with the subjects he has raised, including the departure of the American troops. I understand that the United States Government, the other Caribbean Governments and the Governor General share our concern that there should be a speedy re-establishment of freedom and stability in Grenada. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also agrees.

In considering American statements, will the hon. Gentleman recognise the extent to which they have contradicted themselves in the last few days, particularly on the discovery of mass graves and the number of Cubans on the island? Does he agree that if Grenada is to achieve representative democracy, which we all wish, it is important that the American troops should first withdraw? If foreign troops are required to maintain law and order in the interim, should they not be provided by countries that have not already declared an interest in the outcome of any possible elections? Therefore, is it not important that a Commonwealth force should be allowed to participate?

Given the right hon. Gentleman's military experience, of which we heard the other day, he will understand that the fog of war gives rise to a number of conflicting statements, and all is not clear about what has happened in Grenada in recent days and weeks. However, it is clear that a constitutional Administration can now be established in Grenada. The Governor General is working on that, as are many others, and the Governor General has made it clear that he will invite the overseas troops to leave as soon as he considers that the circumstances are acceptable.

Question No. 8.

rose—

Order. In fairness, I have already called another question.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to make plans to meet the ambassador of Indonesia to discuss relations with that country.

Our relations with Indonesia are good. I have no plans at present to meet the ambassador.

In view of the genocide, torture and repression being perpetrated on the people of East Timor by the Indonesian armed forces, would it not be more appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to call in the ambassador, tell him that the Government have no intention of delivering the five Hawk aircraft, which can be used in a ground-attack role, and that we shall not abstain next time there is a proposal in the United Nations for self-determination for the people of East Timor?

The British Government do not recognise and have not recognised the annexation of East Timor. The hon. Gentleman has used language that implies a wide degree of violence and repression in East Timor. We have taken some soundings on this, and although it is difficult to get accurate information, we do not believe from the evidence that the problem is on the scale that he is suggesting. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Governor of East Timor has suggested that, while the ceasefire has broken down and there is some violence, essentially order has been restored. As to the sale of defence equipment, at all times when we decide whether to grant an export licence we have uppermost in our minds whether the equipment will be used for the abuse of human rights. That is the factor of predominant concern to us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are Her Majesty's Government's major priorities in preparing for the Athens summit.

We have two major priorities. First, to reach agreement on an effective control of agricultural and other expenditure, and secondly, to agree an arrangement to ensure a fair sharing of the financial burden of the Community so that no country has to pay a share disproportionate to its relative national wealth. The resolution of these long-standing problems will enable the Community to concentrate fully on the crucial question of its future development.

Is it not clear from the Commission budget proposals of yesterday that talking tough without backing-up the talk with resolute action is getting us nowhere? Does the Minister accept that the only chance that we have of bringing the budget and the common agricultural policy under proper control is to refuse the EC any further contributions from own resources?

The Commission's proposals yesterday, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, depart from the basis on which net contributions have been assessed for the past four years, a system agreed by the Council of Ministers as a whole and which was the basis of the refunds paid both to the United Kingdom and to the Federal Republic of Germany. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will understand, we find these proposals unacceptable.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was hooted at the other day when he said that our partners were beginning to understand the problem of the budget. Does not this event show that, although we have made progress, there is still further to go? Does my hon. Friend concede that all shades of opinion in the House condemn this eleventh hour change in a definition that has been accepted over the past four years?

There is virtual unanimity among member Governments of the Community that there is justification for a change in the system to ensure that Britain does not bear a disproportionate burden. As to the Commission's proposal, the so-called new interpretation of the existing burdens, I suggest that it smacks more of alchemy than accountancy and cannot be acceptable either to the House or to any reasonable person who has looked at these matters.

Having regard to the continued uncertainty in the fishing industry about the common fisheries policy, does not the Minister think that this issue deserves a high enough priority to be considered by the Athens summit so that the uncertainties can be resolved?

I should not wish to underestimate the importance of fishing to the Community, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Athens summit is concerned only with the matters in the Stuttgart declaration, and fishing is not part of that declaration.

Does my hon. Friend agree that not only are the Community proposals unacceptable, as he rightly said, but that there can be no question of increasing the Community's own resources unless some equitable agreement is reached?

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that Her Majesty's Government will not consider an increase in the own resources of the Community unless a satisfactory agreement is reached, both on the burden that Britain faces in its contribution to the budget and over the control of the agricultural expenditure. If agreement can be reached on these matters, we shall be prepared to consider the reasons why the other member states believe that an increase in own resources is justified.

Does the Minister recollect that when the Prime Minister returned from Stuttgart she told the House that she had obtained a tight timetable and an effective procedure for resolving the budget problem by the Athens summit? Will the Minister now echo the summit optimism of his leader, or is it not the case that yesterday's document exposed as bogus that promise, just as it showed that the Commission is as adept at manipulating the budget figures as the Minister's Government are at fiddling the unemployment figures?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his office. Her Majesty's Government continue to hope that these problems will be resolved by the Athens summit. The Council of Ministers entered into obligations at the time of the Stuttgart declaration and we are ready and willing to reach agreement on these matters at Athens. We hope that our partners in the Community will agree.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what results Her Majesty's Government expect from the European Community summit in Athens.

The European Council in Athens will consider the results of the negotiations launched at Stuttgart in June. We hope that the Council will be in a position to take all decisions called for in the Stuttgart declaration.

Does the Minister accept that the Common Market quagmire is going from bad to disastrous, that the Dublin and Stuttgart summits were failures and abortive and that, although our hopes are on Athens, we shall experience an even more humiliating debacle? As Commissioner Tugendhat said, the books are being cooked against us and we are being cheated. Is not the only way to solve the problem to scrap the bizarre group of taxes that constitute the own resources, and the only way to reform the CAP to allow each nation the freedom to run its own agriculture?

The hon. Gentleman is calling for Britain to withdraw from the Community. He will be aware that that policy was not only soundly rejected by the electorate at the election but has since been dropped by his party's leadership. We are interested in reforming the CAP and ensuring that there should be, as the Government have said, strict financial guidelines on expenditure on agriculture.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's objective on the CAP is to reduce the rate of increase, and that as the rate of increase is now proceeding at about 40 per cent. per annum that objective should be easy to achieve?

My hon. Friend is not quite correct. The Government have said that any rate of increase in agricultural expenditure should be less than the rate of increase in the resources of the Community, because even under the existing system of own resources, without any addition being made to the VAT limit, the buoyancy of the VAT system allows for a natural growth in resources going to the Community. We have said that any increase in agricultural expenditure should be less than that increase.

Does the Minister agree that progress is hardly likely to be advanced by hurling alliterative abuse at the Commission? Was any advance notice or information given to the Government about the Commission's new method of calculation?

We were aware that the Commission intended to present a paper to the Council outlining its ideas not only on the matters that have caused controversy but on the wider issues to be discussed at Athens. No doubt some parts of the proposals are constructive and helpful, but we have made it clear that the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are unacceptable, because they go back on the system that has been applied during the past four years. They would result in an attempt to confuse the burden that now exists for the United Kingdom. We are concerned with the transfer of resources across the exchanges. That is a substantial burden, and nothing that seeks to disguise that fact in the Commission's new proposals can be accepted.

As my hon. Friend represents a Government who are committed to the reduction of public expenditure, will he give a categoric assurance that any advance at Athens will depend on the reduction of expenditure by the Community rather than on increasing the levies raised on this country or any other? Until my hon. Friend can give that assurance, he will find it difficult to obtain national support.

The Government have made it abundantly clear that at a time when all Community states are trying to reduce their expenditure it is unacceptable for the Community as a whole to be exempt from that discipline. Agriculture is the single most important area in which economies are required. I think that there is now broad agreement among all the member states of the Community about the need to control agricultural expenditure. The difference between member states is that the British Government have put forward proposals that would ensure the realisation of that aspiration. As yet we have not obtained the agreement of other member states on realistic ways of achieving that.

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

It is now generally recognised by our partners that the Community must agree measures that will end the budget inequity suffered by certain member states, notably the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] We have put forward a specific proposal for a safety net scheme that would limit the budgetary burdens that any member state would be expected to bear. Negotiations on this issue are continuing today in Athens, at a Special Council attended by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a decision to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS might be very helpful in enabling us to resolve our budget problems, quite apart from the other advantages that it would bring?

There was a somewhat incredulous response from the Opposition when I initially replied to the question. However, I should point out that there is, indeed, unanimity among all member states of the Community about the fact that reform is needed to deal with Britain's budgetary imbalance—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The commitment of the Council of Ministers, which was arrived at at the time of the Stuttgart declaration, pointed to that fact. The Government have always made it clear that there may be circumstances that would make it possible for Britain to accede to the EMS. However, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I must ask my hon. Friend to direct his question to him.

Could not the Community save quite a lot of money on the rent and operation of cold stores by giving away some of the hideous agricultural surpluses to the world's famine areas?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there is a significant food aid scheme that is administered by the Community. We believe that the best way of dealing with the agricultural surpluses that have arisen is by a sensible policy of price restraint. That would do far more to deal with the surpluses than many of the other measures suggested by certain quarters.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that the Commission has merely made a very controversial and unacceptable proposal does not mean that it will automatically be accepted by the Council of Ministers or the summit? Given constructive good will and co-operation among all member states, there is a very good chance of a successful Athens summit.

My hon. Friend is correct. The Commission has often made proposals which, in the event, have been rejected or substantially amended by the Council of Ministers. I have no doubt that this proposal will be another example of that phenomenon.

Is not the Minister concerned that the Assembly has not only held up the 1983 refund but has clearly stated that its approval depends on success at Athens, about which the Minister — although he had hopes—was rather less than certain? If the Conservatives are anxious to obtain that refund, why did a dozen of them at Strasbourg vote against the payment?

At the time of the Stuttgart declaration the Council of Ministers made it clear that the payment of the refund to which the hon. Gentleman referred was not in any way dependent on the outcome of the Athens negotiations. The European Parliament has in the past sought to block refunds due to the United Kingdom, but in the event it has eventually agreed that refunds should be released. It is essential that those refunds are released by the appropriate time. I remain hopeful that the European Parliament will accept its responsibilities in this matter.

Do the Government recognise that generalised proposals for price restraints in agriculture will fail, just as they have failed before? Are the Government at last moving towards recognition of the fact that quantitive restrictions on price support in certain commodities — notably cereals — are more likely to achieve the Government's objectives?

We have said that there should be not only a strict financial guideline for the totality of agriculture expenditure but specific proposals for each of the commodity regimes covered by the CAP. Price restraint is the most important component in controlling surpluses or unnecessary costs in each of those areas, but we do not rule out other measures that are relevant to particular commodities.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government policy on standardisation of benefits and services available throughout the European Community.

If, as I assume, this question relates to social services and social security benefits, there is no policy of standardisation in the Community; nor would such a policy be realistic, given the range of different benefits available in member states.

Is the Minister aware of a recent United Nations study of European countries, which showed that Britain, of all the Common Market countries, pays by far the lowest unemployment benefit as a percentage of average earnings of a worker with three children? Does not the Minister agree that the Common Market, which has cost £1·6 million per day for the past decade, was sold to the British taxpayer on the basis of an increase in living standards? Despite that, British membership during the past 10 years has produced nothing other than the lowest rate of unemployment benefit.

The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the tradition of other countries in the Community paying higher social security benefits goes back far more than 10 years. The social security benefits that can be paid by any Government depend on the national wealth of the country involved. This Government's whole economic strategy is devoted to increasing that national wealth.

Does my hon. Friend agree that among the benefits that are available to Community members there should be a fair deal on finance, and that 70 or 80 per cent. of the money should not be spent purely on agricultural policy? As the benefits are not fairly distributed, does my hon. Friend agree that there is no evidence whatever that this House would agree, in any circumstances, to an increase in own resources?

The Government's policy is directed towards ensuring that agriculture represents a progressively smaller share of total Community expenditure. I assure my hon. Friend that that will continue to be the basis of Government policy.

Why did the British Government support the removal of funds for the anti-poverty programme from the Community budget? Was it because those funds were intended to support welfare rights programmes and to encourage the take-up of such benefits as still exist under this Government?

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new appointment. I cannot give him a detailed answer to that question at present, but I assure him that the basis of Government policy on such matters is to ensure the best possible use of the resources available.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what matters were discussed at the last meeting of the Council of Ministers which he attended.

I represented the United Kingdom at the Foreign Affairs Council held on 17 and 18 of October. A report on the outcome of this meeting was contained in my reply of 25 October to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lindsey (Mr. Tapsell).

Does the Minister agree that in recent months he and his European colleagues have given grossly inadequate consideration to energy questions? Will he ensure that greater consideration is given to securing the fulfilment of the repeated commitments given to the coal industry by the Community? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that coal imports to Europe, which now exceed 70 million tonnes a year, are disadvantageous to the European coal industry and may create an economic dependency which — as I hope he will agree — would be very unwise?

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the United Kingdom Government have been in the forefront in pressing for a Community energy policy. A document on new policies for the Community was tabled by the Government some time ago, which said that a new Community initiative was required over energy needs. We emphasised the role that the Community's coal resources could play in such an energy policy.

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said about a common energy policy, but may I ask him to persist in reminding the House that, whatever quarrel we may have with the Community over the budget. it is lunacy to think in terms either of paralysing the Community or of threatening non-co-operation at a time when the threat to this country from the East has never been greater because of possible quarrels over the Soviet succession and at a time when we appear to be finding it extraordinarily difficult to work with our American allies?

My hon. Friend is correct. It is in the interests of every member state of the Community that an early and satisfactory resolution to the problems on finance should be reached, not only for their own sake, but so that the Community can devote its attention to the many other areas of development in Community policy chat are urgently required.

If the Government are in the forefront of energy policy, should they not also be in the forefront of energy conservation policy? What steps do the Minister and his colleagues propose to take to persuade the Government to bring our energy conservation standards into line with some of those in Europe? Are the Government prepared to make it worth while for people to pursue an energy conservation policy?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is as concerned as he is on such matters. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman puts any questions on detailed matters affecting energy to my right hon. Friend.