asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to seek to pay an early visit to Papua New Guinea.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to do so.

I hope that our right hon. and learned Friend and some of his junior Ministers will have the opportunity of visiting that delightful country, to which some of us on both sides of the House recently had the opportunity of going. Will my hon. Friend direct his attention to the remarkable investment in the oil palm, with strong Commonwealth Development Corporation support, with particular reference to the anxiety that has been expressed about the possible increased tariff by the EC, which would have deleterious effects on the industry of Papua New Guinea?

I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the prospect of ministerial visits to Papua New Guinea. I assure him that I share the concern to which he referred about the proposed imposition of levies by the European Community, a concern which is shared by other member states.

I was one of the members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation that was ably led by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Sir W. van Straubenzee). In the event of such a visit, will the Minister review the Government's attitude to overseas development? In particular, will he consider giving some support to the British Council in Indonesia, which is doing a first-class job and should be given more encouragement?

I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to Papua New Guinea. We shall look at the proposal, and also at the question of British aid to Papua New Guinea, which aid at present goes through a number of multinational agencies, such as the European Development Fund, the Asian Development Bank and the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on political and military cooperation with Chile.

Our cooperation in these fields reflects the normal range of diplomatic relations we maintain with Chile.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that no negotiations are in progress or in prospect for the sale of HMS Hermes, given the estate of play on other arms sales such as HMS Antrim, the Jaguars, and the Sea Eagles? How can we in Britain influence the United States of America over its arms sales to Argentina when we are seen to be so eager to sell arms to the most repressive regime in that area, and the regime with the highest indebtedness?

The two aspects are completely different, in particular because Argentina has still not offered a formal cessation of hostilities. Chile is no threat to us and has defence preoccupations of her own. Negotiations are continuing on the sale of HMS Antrim to Chile, but no sale has been concluded. Chile is one of a number of countries which have expressed an interest in purchasing Jaguar aircraft when they become surplus to our requirements. HMS Hermes remains in service with the Royal Navy and no decision has been reached on her future after she pays off. As to arms sales in general, we maintain normal relationships with Chile and will continue not to supply weapons that are likely, in our judgment, to be used for internal repression.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that those of us in the Bow Group who have just returned from a visit to Chile have seen for ourselves a marked improvement in human rights and a development towards democracy there? Will my right hon. and learned Friend encourage those helpful moves by a somewhat closer attitude towards Chile than has so far been demonstrated?

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for conveying to me information arising from his recent visit. As I said in my original reply, we have maintained the normal range of diplomatic relations with Chile. In the course of such relations we have made clear our condemnation of violations of human rights when they have occured. We are doing everything that we can to encourage the restoration of democracy in Chile by peaceful means. I am much encouraged by what my hon. and learned Friend said about that.

Would the Foreign Secretary like to reconsider his reply to the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) about human rights, bearing in mind that the war tribunal in Chile has been reconvened and is trying some workers? Is he aware that the jury of the tribunal is handpicked and that defence lawyers are not allowed to cross-question evidence, but are allowed only to make a statement? In the light of that, how can the Foreign Secretary continue to justify the sale of arms to a regime which is as despicable as the Argentine junta?

There are conflicting views about the matter and it is our function to maintain the right balance between them. We welcome progress when it takes place. However, that does not prevent us from making representations such as I have made to the Chilean Foreign Minister and the Chilean Ambassador about human rights issues when they arise. I understand that the Chilean Supreme Court has ordered a temporary suspension of the war tribunal and that it has been invited to rule on the constitutionality of the law under which the tribunal sits.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the recognition of a Government of Kampuchea.

It remains our view that there are no authorities in Cambodia with which we can deal as a Government.

What conceivable justification can there be for the Government continuing to support the United Nations recognition of the coalition that includes the mass murderer Pol Pot as the representative of Kampuchea? Will the Government reconsider their stance with regard to bilateral aid, bearing in mind that such aid is urgently needed by the long-suffering people of Kampuchea?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in 1979 we withdrew recognition from the Pol Pot Government and accepted the recommendations of the United Nations Credentials Committee that it should give credentials to the three main component parts of the resistance coalition. The Government face two alternatives, neither of which is perfect. The alternative to supporting the resistance coalition is supporting the occupation of Cambodia by 150,000 Vietnamese troops. That would be wholly wrong. We gave £500,000 this year to multilateral bodies which help Cambodians who cross the border and need support, most of which is medical.

Although I accept my hon. Friend's explanation of the difficulties in which we find ourselves in relation to Kampuchea, may I ask him two questions —[HON. MEMBERS: "One question."]—one question, in two parts? Is it not right that we normally recognise Governments who are the de facto Governments of their countries? Does my hon. Friend agree that the de facto Government in Kampuchea is that of Heng Samrin? If such recognition should take place, however distasteful it might be, we could begin to assist those who are suffering seriously from human rights abuses and deprivation in that country.

One criterion that we must take into account is whether a Government have effective control over all the territory of a country. Another factor at the moment, however, is that if the 150,000 Vietnamese troops were not in Cambodia that Government would have virtually no control. I cannot believe that it is right to support the existence of Vietnamese troops in Cambodia.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress in the negotiations with Peking over the future of Hong Kong.

A more detailed phase of the talks between the British and Chinese Governments on Hong Kong's future began in July. The sixth round in this phase was held on 14 and 15 November in Peking. Both sides agreed that it was useful and constructive. The next round is taking place today and tomorrow in Peking.

In view of the uncertainty in some quarters in Hong Kong because of the length of the negotiations and the need to keep them confidential, can my right hon. and learned Friend say what measures have been taken to maintain morale in Hong Kong? Has consideration been given to the form of test whereby any agreement reached should be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong?

On my hon. Friend's latter point, as has been made plain throughout the discussions, the objective is to keep in close touch with the views of the people of Hong Kong. One of our aims is to find a settlement which is acceptable to Hong Kong as well as to Britain and China. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of confidence. It was with that in mind that the Governor of Hong Kong made it clear in a speech to the Legislative Council earlier this autumn that the Government intend to continue to invest vigorously in the future of its territory and its development. In late September, and again on 15 October, the Hong Kong Government took certain steps to stabilise the Hong Kong dollar and abolished the local tax paid on Hong Kong dollar deposits.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Government bear a substantial responsibility for the future of the territory of Hong Kong and for its people, many of whom fled there to find sanctuary? Does he agree also that the answer to the problem might have international as well as bilateral ramifications and that the time to start talking about them is now?

The Government certainly have a substantial responsibility for the people in the territory of Hong Kong. That consideration is firmly in our minds and in the minds of those who are involved in the talks with the Chinese Government.

To what extent are the district boards being used as a method of keeping in touch with the opinions of the people of Hong Kong?

They are one set of institutions through which we are trying to maintain contact with the opinion of the people of Hong Kong. There are many other means.

Can it not be said that the belligerence that the Prime Minister has shown in some statements has prejudiced the possibility of a real settlement of the problem? By making such statements, has she not unsettled the Chinese when making their public statements, with the result that the Hong Kong exchange has been adversely affected?

The hon. Gentleman's observation is neither accurate nor helpful. The agreed aim of the talks is to maintain the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. We hope to achieve that through the talks, which we hope will lead to suitable arrangements to that end.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that any agreement that is reached by the Governments of Britain and China about the future of Hong Kong after 1997 will have to be submitted to the House for approval? Is he aware that he will have the support of the House for an agreement that ensures that the people of Hong Kong are able to continue to enjoy their traditional way of life?

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his observations. As we have made clear from the outset, the arrangements for the future of Hong Kong should be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, the Chinese Government and Parliament.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the veil of secrecy that surrounds the negotiations should be torn down and that agreed communiqués from the Peking Government and our Government following each round of talks would go a long way to alleviate the anxiety of ordinary people in Hong Kong about their future?

I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's advice as to the right way in which to conduct the negotiations. The issues are complex and are bound to be considered over a significant period of time. I am sure that it is right, as has been agreed by both Governments, that the discussions should be conducted in confidence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will draw up plans to deal with British hooligans and vandals on holiday in Spanish resorts next summer.

I very much deplore any cases of hooliganism by British tourists abroad, but the question of controlling the behaviour of holidaymakers and tourists is, of course, a matter for the local authorities.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend please ensure that any efforts by consuls in different parts of Europe next summer are concentrated on people who suffer illness or injury, rather than on those who get themselves into difficulties through their own actions?

I wish that it were in my power to ensure that. Certainly it would be far better if the work of our consuls were directed in that fashion. Unhappily, a minority of British tourists—no doubt they are not alone—embark on incidents of hooliganism and do great damage to the reputation of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will raise again with the Soviet authorities the case of Ida Nudel who has been waiting 12 years for permission to leave the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

We will continue to take suitable opportunities to raise this case with the Soviet authorities.

Is the Minister aware that during the past few weeks reports have been received to the effect that Ida Nudel is not receiving the letters sent to her by her family and friends living abroad? Does that not constitute a breach of the universal postal comvention? Will he seek to have this matter placed on the agenda of the next Universal Postal Congress, which is to be held in Hamburg next year?

We shall consider what the hon. Gentleman said. There is no doubt that Miss Nudel has been treated badly in her application to emigrate from the Soviet Union. Her application was originally refused on the ground that in her previous employment she had had access to classified information. As her previous job, before she was dismissed, was in an institute concerned with hygiene standards and food shops, it was a somewhat improbable explanation.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that Ida Nudel was the winner of the all-party committee for the release of Soviet Jewry award some two years ago, as was Josef Begun last year, who has been sentenced to solitary confinement "for unsatisfactory behaviour", and whose case I hope my hon. Friend will raise at the same time as that of Miss Nudel?

The cases of Ida Nudel and Josef Begun were raised on several occasions by our representative at the conference in Madrid, and I pesonally raised the case of Miss Nudel when I saw Mr. Kornienko in Moscow earlier this year. We shall continue to look at other methods of pursuing the case, including that suggested by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall)

Is the Minister aware of reports that Soviet officials are signing registered letter receipts on behalf of Jewish refusniks and thus preventing them receiving mail from abroad? Is he also aware that a number of Hebrew books have been banned in the Soviet Union, including "The Ugly Duckling" and "Sleeping Beauty"? Both actions appear to be in complete breach of the Helsinki undertakings. Will the Minister make representations on the matter?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the various ways in which the Soviet Union is failing to carry out its responsibilities under the Helsinki agreement. The example that he gave suggests that the Soviet Union's determination to prevent sensitive information from reaching its own citizens extends beyond the wildest realms of fantasy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Uganda Government the question of compensation for expropriated property and assets of British citizens.

I discussed this question with the Prime Minister of Uganda this morning. I told him of the importance we attach to seeing significant progress made in settling these claims. Mr. Allimadi explained that work was already in hand and that he understood the importance of the matter.

Notwithstanding the discussions that took place this morning, is it the Government's intention, in the light of a recent High Court decision, to allow a test case of a Ugandan on the question of compensation, to see whether Ugandan law is effective? Is it the Government's intention to put Ugandans settled here through the mincemeat of our legal machinery, or will they take into account the magnificent decision that was taken in the early '70s by the right hon. Member for what is now Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, to allow Ugandans to settle here? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that this is a valid criterion and pursue more positively with the Ugandan Government the question of the restitution of assets to Ugandans who have settled here which are validly and legally theirs?

The hon. Gentleman, in talking about putting those people through the legal machinery, may have misunderstood the position. An application for a judicial review will be heard by the High Court in this country next year. That is sub judice, and it would not be proper for me to say anything about it. The real remedy — I think that it is the one for which the hon. Gentleman is pressing—is effective implementation of the remedies that are available to the claimants under the law in Uganda. The important aspect, which I stressed to the Ugandan Prime Minister this morning, is the need to press ahead with the implementation of that law, to produce the remedies that the hon. Gentleman seeks. I received the assurance which I have reported to the House.

The House will welcome the vigour with which the Foreign Secretary is pursuing this matter, but the real issue is whether local legal remedies are available to Ugandan Asians in the courts of Uganda. As the initial decision by the court in this country was that there were no legal remedies, can the Foreign Secretary reiterate the assurance given by his predecessor, in his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), that if no legal remedies are available in Uganda the British Government will accept responsibility for all the claims?

Plainly, if that turns out to be the position we shall have to reconsider the matter. What is important is whether there are Ugandan remedies and whether they are effective. Our representations have been directed towards that end. The law exists. There has been some delay in establishing the membership of the verification committee, but I have been assured that that will be put right and that steps are being taken to process these claims. We shall continue to maintain pressure to secure further progress in that direction, which I am sure is the right way in which to resolve the matter.

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

We have friendly relations with Angola, though the problem of the British prisoners remains.

When my hon. Friend visited Angola relatively recently, did he raise with the Angolan Government the case of my former constituent, now the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), Mr. Malcolm McIntyre, and other Britons? Did he gain any impression of the possibility of the early release of those imprisoned mercenaries? Did he form a view about the recent successes of UNITA being a problem in the release of those mercenaries?

When I was in Luanda recently I raised the problem of the British mercenaries with both the Angolan Foreign Minister and other Angolan Ministers whom I met. I reminded the Angolan Foreign Minister of his statement earlier this year that he hoped there would be an opportune moment for the release of the British mercenaries during 1983. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no doubt that the Angolan Government are concerned about the implications of the release of mercenaries for their country's internal problems. We hope that what was said by the Angolan Foreign Minister will be fully honoured before the end of this year.

Is it not true that the South African illegal occupation of Namibia and its attacks on southern Angola, with the support of UNITA, exacerbate relations between almost any country and Angola, and that Angola, left to itself, would be far more humane, even to mercenaries, if the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor) did something to attack South Africa for illegally occupying Namibia and for its attacks on Angola?

While we have made clear our disapproval of the South African occupation of part of Angola, the main problem facing the Angolan Government is the internal war between the Angolan Government and the UNITA movement. In our view, that problem should be resolved by the people of Angola themselves. We hope that there will be no foreign intervention from any source.

When my hon. Friend was in Luanda, did he express to the Angolan authorities the view that the presence of Cuban troops in Angola was a negative factor in trying to achieve a peaceful solution of the Namibian independence problem?

On a number of occasions we have made it clear to the Angolan Government that if it became possible for the Cubans to leave Angola that would not only contribute to solving the problem of Namibian independence but would help to relieve the tension in South Africa as a whole.

What efforts have the Government made to bring about the release of British missionaries from Northern Ireland who are at present imprisoned in Angola by UNITA?

I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about a number of missionaries, of whom I think two are of British origin. We are anxiously exploring ways, both direct with the Angolan Government and through the International Red Cross, to try to resolve the problem.

On the question of linkage, why was the Government's position not made clear to Mr. Botha? He was reported last Friday, after his meeting with the Foreign Secretary, as saying that

"while he now understood British motives, he was still confused about Britain's real position towards South Africa's demand"

I cannot comment on Mr. Botha's confusion, but the British Government have always made it clear that while we do not recognise any legal or legitimate connection between Cuban troops in Angola and the independence of Namibia, progress towards the departure of Cubans from Angola would improve the atmosphere in the region as a whole and make an important contribution towards resolving the Namibian problem.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what report he has received from the British consulate in Istanbul about the outcome of the trial of a member of the Turkish Peace Association.

Her Majesty's consulate-general in Istanbul has reported that 23 of the defendants were found guilty of offences under the Turkish penal code. Eighteen received sentences of eight years' imprisonment and five sentences of five years' imprisonment. The remaining five defendants were released.

Will the Government use their influence and close relationship with the Turkish regime to demand the release of these innocent people who have done no more than advocate disarmament and ask whether it is helpful to Turkey to be a member of NATO, especially as many of them are old, frail and sick? Will the Government cease to defend this brutal and repressive regime just because it is a member of NATO and cease to apply double standards in relation to Turkey?

The hon. Lady will be aware that appeals have been lodged in these cases and, therefore, they are sub judice. The Government have consistently made clear to the Turkish authorities our concern, and that of the British people, about continuing allegations of violations of human rights. However, it is not normal practice for the Government formally to intervene with the Government of another country on behalf of that country's citizens.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman suggested that because a legal case was being heard in another country no comment should be made upon it in this House. That is surely totally contrary to the practice of this House.

I do not think that it would be sub judice for us.

Will the Minister consider the possibility of taking economic and political sanctions against Turkey, particularly on military exports, until these prisoners have been released?

Our views on violations of human rights in Turkey and elsewhere have been made clear, and we take what seems to be useful and effective action. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's proposition would be so effective.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss with other European Community Governments the situation in Central America.

We keep in close touch with our partners of the Ten, and discuss Central America whenever this is necessary.

If the Foreign Secretary still has any influence at all with the United States, will he ensure that the conciliatory moves by the Government of Nicaragua receive a positive response?

The United States Government have welcomed the moves by the Government of Nicaragua, and all of us who look for the establishment of peace, democratic institutions and democracy in that country hope that those measures will result in genuine progress in that direction.

Would it not have been easier to persuade the Americans and others with influence in El Salvador to have effective free elections had the Nicaraguans held elections after their revolution?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting to compare the promises that have now been announced by the Nicaraguan Government with the undertakings they gave in 1979.

As the hon. Gentleman is so concerned to protect the Prime Minister's interests in this matter, does he not recall that when the right hon. Lady last talked to her colleagues at the European summit in Stuttgart, she agreed with them that force has no role to play in seeking a solution to the problems of Central America? Will he therefore ensure that the British Government inform the American Government that they should now withdrew their troops from this alleged exercise in Honduras and accept the many steps that the Nicaraguan Government have taken towards trying to establish normal relations with the United States through peaceful negotiation?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government's constant position is to seek peaceful progress in Central America, be it in Nicaragua or elsewhere. I very much hope that the Nicaraguan Government, who have the largest standing army in Central America and whose Cuban military presence is greater than any other foreign observer, will take note and subscribe to the Contadora initiative.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report on progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the middle east.

The lack of progress towards a comprehensive settlement is deeply disappointing. We believe that President Reagan's proposals of September 1982 still offer a realistic basis for negotiation.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the most effective ways of defusing the present highly dangerous situation in the middle east would be for the European Community to sponsor a conference at which all the relevant parties, including the United States and the Soviet Union, would participate? Will he do something to persuade our American friends that that is a reality?

I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion, because it is important that every possible alternative should be carefully examined. However, I am not sure that his suggestion would be the easiest way of making progress.

Does the Secretary of State still believe that there can be no lasting peace in the middle east unless it is recognised that the Palestinians have the same right to a homeland as any other people on this earth? If that is still the Government's policy, what steps is he taking to try to secure self-determination for the Palestinians?

We have always acknowledged that the Palestinian people must play a full part in negotiations on their future. We still believe that they should do so. It would be a serious mistake if they were to turn their backs on the possibility of a peaceful solution as a result of the recent upheavals. In addition, they should be prepared to accept the right of Israel to exist in peace and should renounce terrorism in unambiguous terms.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us in this House, and even those who number themselves as being among America's greatest friends and allies, have serious reservations about her policy and its application in the middle east? Does he think that that policy, and the actions that are furthering it, make it easier for Western-Arab allies in that difficult area?

I understand my hon. Friend's point and respect the moderation with which he made it. Clearly, it is important for the United States to understand the anxieties that were expressed in this House on Monday. Those have been drawn to their attention. Today I saw the President's special envoy in the middle east, Mr. Rumsfeld, and tonight and tomorrow in Brussels I should be meeting Secretary of State Shultz and the other Foreign Secretaries concerned in the multinational force and NATO.

In view of its likely effects on the prospects for peace in the middle east and on long-term Western interests in the area, may I ask whether the Government were consulted before the conclusion of the Israeli-American strategic agreement?

The recent discussions between the Israeli Government and the United States concerned the bilateral relations between those two countries. There was no specific consultation with us about that.

While the House must be concerned with the safety of British military personnel in the Lebanon, and while there is plenty of room for doubt about the wisdom of deepening American involvement in the internal affairs of that country, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that by far the most important priority of this House is to defend the main British interests and the continuing strength of the Western Alliance, bedded on our alliance with the United States?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Even though there may be differences between members of the Alliance, it is crucial that we do not forget the fundamental importance of the Alliance to the West and to this country. There are many matters on which we must hold discussions. We have done so and will continue.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the United States Administration have a certain obligation to respect the importance of the unity of the Alliance in the decisions that they take on issues in other parts of the world? Does he agree also that President Reagan torpedoed his own proposals for a Palestinian settlement, which he made in September 1982, by making, the other day, with the Israeli Government what their Prime Minister described as a "military alliance", and by using military force against Syria in the Lebanon in pursuance of Presidential directive 111, which was signed on 29 October? Does he agree that the excuse that was given the other day by the Minister of State in the House that the Americans were acting in self-defence is blown out of the water by the many reports in the American press from officials in the American Administration that the military action was decided on long before the reconnaissance aircraft were fired on in the Bekaa valley?

It is important for all partners to an alliance to recognise the importance of that alliance and to conduct themselves accordingly. It is important also for all the participants in the multinational force to play their part in that force in a fashion that is consistent with their original objectives. The explanation for the American action in the Lebanon is something for the Americans to give. My hon. Friend presented the House with the position as he understood it on Monday, and he did so correctly and accurately. It is important for all concerned to recognise that the objective of the multinational force's presence is to promote the process of reconciliation to secure better prospects for the sovereign independence of the Lebanon.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that he was led up the garden path by the American Administration in respect of the Lebanon as he was led up it on Grenada? Unless he is prepared to stand up for British interests within the Alliance, the Alliance will founder.

The right hon. Gentleman scarcely ever misses an opportunity of doing what he can to attack the United States in respect of the Alliance.

What about answering the question?

I shall answer the question fairly. The right hon. Gentleman is too often tempted by the simple attraction of denouncing the United States. It is my role—it is one that I am happy to fulfil and one that I shall fulfil — to ensure that Britain's views on these matters are fully and accurately represented to our partners in the multinational force. I shall do just that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government would now consider an increase in own resources of the European Community.

The conditions in which Her Majesty's Government would consider an increase in own resources are unchanged since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spelt them out at the European Council in Stuttgart in June. Before any increase can be considered there must be effective control of agricultural and other expenditure and an arrangement to ensure a fair sharing of the Community's financial burden. That was our position in Athens and it remains our position.

Will the Secretary of State say whether any of the Athens discussions considered the aid and development budget of the Community and the importance of safeguarding it against predations from the common agricultural policy? Did he take the opportunity provided by the summit to raise the interests of those Commonwealth countries excluded from the ACP and Lomé agreements, such as India, or when in Athens did he simply forget the priorities and agenda of the New Delhi summit?

There was no specific discussion of the aid and development budget. One would not have expected that in the circumstances of the negotiations. I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that we were not unmindful of the relationships and obligations between Britain and other European countries and the Third world. One of the matters on which we were most insistent—I give this as an example — was our objection to the proposed tax on fats and oils. We argued that that would be harmful to the relationship between the Community and industrial countries, and certainly with Third world countries.

In view of the problems at Athens yesterday, would it not be sensible to concentrate on one thing at a time and to delay further discussion of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community until we have sorted out the very real problems of the United Kingdom's budgetary contribution and the common agricultural policy? Would not this have the additional advantage that for the time being, if we are to sort out the common agricultural policy, we shall not need an increase in own resources?

The way in which these matters are discussed and the order in which they are discussed will be a matter for consideration in the light of the failure to reach agreement in Athens yesterday. Question No. 56 relates to the entry of Spain and Portugal.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate the rather surreal aspect to these exchanges in the wake of the failure at Athens, where the Government failed to get any of the conditions that they set out for an increase in own resources? Will he confirm that the proposed modulation of VAT that was discussed at Athens would not meet the British position on budgetary contributions as it would leave untouched customs levies and agricultural import levies, which are the real source of British disadvantage under the budget? Why does he not tell the House that in the present circumstances there is no prospect of Parliament being asked to increase the levies paid by the British people to finance expenditure on agriculture, which the Community has all too self-evidently no real intention of reforming?

The conclusions of the summit in the past two days are a disappointment to the Government and they should be disappointing to us all. It is crucial for the Community to resolve the questions that are on the agenda. It is wrong of the hon. Gentleman to summarise the conclusions of the two days by saying that the Government failed to establish their position. Our position was crystal clear throughout the negotiations. We wanted the Community to resolve these matters and we believe that it is important that that should remain our position.

rose——

Order. There are many more Questions on the Order Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Community foreign policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he is putting to his European Community colleagues to strengthen political co-operation.

The Ten are in constant and close consultation on current international problems with a view to achieving common positions on them. Most recently, the Ten issued joint statements on the Lebanon in Athens on 9 November and on the purported declaration of independence by the Turkish community in northern Cyprus, in Athens on the 16 November.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that greater co-operation in foreign affairs remains a major objective of Government foreign policy despite the disappointing outcome of the Athens summit?

That is a highly desirable objective. Whenever the Community can speak with one voice on foreign policy issues there is a greater impact on the international community as a whole than if individual countries put forward their own specific positions.

Does my hon. Friend accept that despite the deplorable obstinacy of our Common Market partners in clinging to their national interests as firmly as we are clinging to ours, the fact remains that without some give and take on all sides co-operation will break down altogether at a time when it has never been more necessary?

I can understand my hon. Friend's point. There has been considerable success within the Community in achieving common positions on a number of important foreign policy considerations.

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the undoubted fact that there are many British people who believe that the result of the Athens summit is a sellout once again to vested interests in countries whose interests are opposed to those of Britain?

The question is directed to Community foreign policy, which I do not think is relevant to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I recently visited the Quai d'Orsay, in the anteroom of which was a large portrait of Cardinal Richelieu? As long as the Cardinal's policies continue, relations with France are bound to be difficult. Should we not be as nationalistic as they are?

I am unable to give an adequate reply to that question. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom does not cease to regard its national interests as being the prime concern when dealing matters affecting the European Community.

As the Athens summit did not discuss either Cyprus or the Lebanon, or reach any agreement on domestic Community policies, how on earth does the Minister expect the Ten to come to any rational agreement on the complex issues of foreign policy?

If the hon. Gentleman thinks about his question, he will realise that in recent weeks an opportunity has been available to the Community to achieve a common position on Cyprus and the Lebanon. It is not surprising, bearing in mind the circumstances of the Athens summit, that the time available should have been used to try to reach agreement on the internal Community problems.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanism is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to control the increase in expenditure on the common agriculture policy.

Our proposals for the control of agricultural spending were explained by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the debate in the House on the common agricultural policy on 1 December. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement to the House later today on the outcome of the European Council in Athens at which this subject was discussed.

Since France and other EC countries will not accept even the most minor changes to the common agricultural policy, how on earth does the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary expect them to accept the major changes which the Government and the House expect? If that is the position, will the Government create a major constitutional crisis in Europe, or will they, yet again, accept a humiliating climb-down?

The conclusions of yesterday's proceedings make it absolutely plain that there is no question of the Government agreeing to a humiliating climb-down on this or any other issue. There was widespread recognition throughout the Athens negotiations of the need to ensure fundamental reforms of the CAP. We had before us a French document recognising the need for the control of Community expenditure. The topic was under discussion. Unfortunately, the will did not go far enough to secure sufficiently effective control. That is one of the reasons why we were not prepared to accept that conclusion.

Would not one of the best mechanisms to control the CAP be to stop paying farmers for growing food that we do not want at prices that we cannot afford?

That is a shrewd and perceptive observation. Effective control on agricultural surpluses — directed, for example, to milk — was one of the matters on which we and several other states were prepared to agree, but on which agreement did not spread sufficiently far in Athens yesterday.

As the CAP has meant a scandalous destruction of fruit, vegetable and dairy mountains, when will the Government make a stand, not only on the issue of increasing own resources, but on stopping any resources entering the Common Market until this matter is sorted out?

The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that agricultural protection regimes in other countries, apart from those in the European Community, often have unintended effects of the type he described. That is one of the reasons why our stand is directed to securing effective control of the growth of agricultural expenditure and a proper regime within the Community to tackle precisely the problems that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Is the my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, while most hon. Members accept that the Government have performed a great service by stating they believe that CAP expenditure should be contained and controlled, many of us who listened to the 1 December debate and all the statements have not the slightest idea of precisely how the Government think that the capping, containing or restraining should be performed?

My hon. Friend should re-study the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in that debate. The essence of the approach is that there must be a proper limit on expenditure on the agricultural policy, accompanied by effective policies, which would include a strict price policy and changes in the other regimes to ensure that no methods remained open whereby surpluses continued to grow along the lines about which we have complained.

If the Government are committed to obtaining effective control over agricultural expenditure, why is the Chancellor of the Exchequer budgeting for a 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on agricultural intervention?

There is no sign of what the outturn of the negotiations will be. The House should be in no doubt after last week's debate that one of the conditions for a successful conclusion of the Stuttgart-Athens agenda is the achievement of effective control on the growth of agricultural spending.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated net cost of the European Community budget of the proposed accession of Spain and Portugal.

It is generally accepted that both Spain and Portugal will be net recipients from the Community budget. Their actual net receipts after accession will depend on the outcome both of the post-Stuttgart and the accession negotiations currently under way.

Bearing in mind that the movement towards the accession of Spain and Portugal is gaining momentum, can we be given accurate estimates of costs on which to base a decision of principle, as the events of the past few days show that budgetary arrangements, once settled, are difficult to alter? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there is a limit to the costs that the Government would be prepared to accept in admitting Spain and Portugal to the EC?

The costs of accession cannot yet be determined, as they depend on the nature and conclusion of the enlargement negotiations, and on the outturn of the negotiations that were broken off in Athens yesterday. Our contribution to those costs depends critically on our success in achieving a fair amendment of the budgetary arrangements in the Community which was one of the two key conditions emphasised by my right hon. Friend in Athens and Stuttgart.

Are the estimates of the costs of accession likely to be based on present levels of agricultural production in Spain and Portugal, or are vast increases to be expected under any conceivable regime for those two countries?

The precise shape of agricultural output and size for those two countries depends on the conclusions arrived at for the CAP regime as a whole.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he most recently met other European Community Foreign Ministers; and what subjects were discussed.

I met my Community colleagues on 4–6 December at the European Council, to which I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The subjects discussed will be covered by my right hon. Friend in the statement she will be making immediately after Question Time today.

Is it not time that even this thick-skinned Government understood that the Common Market summit — like many others—was a complete waste of time? Does not that fact vindicate those of us who, on 28 October 1971, refused to be carried away by the propaganda to vote for the Common Market, as were the Social Democrats and the rest? Does it not say much about the Common Market that it cannot settle matters discussed for 48 hours, but can manage to produce regulations to cover the length, weight and size of gherkins? What a carry on. Why does not the Foreign Secretary stand at the Dispatch Box and say that we will not send any contribution? That is the way to operate.

I am prepared to leave the hon. Gentleman in the increasingly eccentric isolation that his views represent. He would do well to consider the length of time, which has to be measured in years and not days, that the Labour party has taken in failing to solve its problems.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what percentage reduction in price for cereals and milk was proposed at Athens by the British Government?

Our main proposal for milk was concentrated on reducing substantially the total volume of milk covered by Community arrangements and on proposing a price freeze for a significant period. We proposed that cereal prices should be lowered progressively, to get closer to world prices.

Point 2 of the Venice declaration referred to the traditional ties and common interests that link Europe to the middle east. Why was time not found to discuss a joint common initiative to help resolve the problems of the middle east?

Some discussions on that subject took place between those who attended the Athens meeting, but no time remained for formal conclusions on such mattters. It would have been inappropriate to try to reach rushed conclusions, as most time had to be devoted to discussions on the main Community agenda.

If there is still no reform of the CAP by March, will the Government be prepared to agree a new farm price review?

The longer the time that elapses before these crucial questions are agreed, the greater will become the constraints on the institutions of the Community, including the constraints within which Agriculture Ministers have to consider farm prices.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to attend the Council of Ministers of the European Communities.

My right hon. and learned Friend expects to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on the 19 and 20 of December.

In the light of recent events, will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that primary responsibility for next year's farm prices should be transferred from the Agriculture Council to the Finance Council or the General Council?

My hon. Friend knows that our prime objectives include ensuring that there is a strict financial guideline in agriculture and that financial considerations should play a most important part in determining the totality of agriculture expenditure.