asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the level of diplomatic representation of Her Majesty's Government in Turkey.

We are represented by a resident ambassador in the Turkish capital Ankara with a full supporting staff.

Will the Foreign Secretary convey to our ambassador in Turkey the strong feeling, not only in the House but in the country, over the fact that 33,000 political prisoners are languishing in Turkish gaols, and that, by Telex to newspapers throughout the country, the military recently banned any references to an amnesty for those political prisoners? Given the fact that we are partners in NATO, will our ambassador in Turkey make the strongest representations to the new Government there about our great disquiet over the number of political prisoners in Turkey?

Her Majesty's Government have steadily made clear to the Turkish Government our concern about human rights in Turkey, and this was last done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State in Stockholm last week in his discussions with the Turkish Foreign Minister. We shall continue to make the Turkish Government aware of this concern. We welcome the fact that immediately on taking office the new Turkish Government declared that they were opposed to any action aimed at reducing basic human rights and freedom.

Should not the Turkish Government be further complimented on the fact that within the first few days of their office they have agreed to the holding of local government elections throughout the country, involving all political parties? Is this not a great step forward in democracy?

I accept what my hon. Friend says. We welcome that development, as we do any further development towards the full restoration of democratic rights in Turkey.

Is the Minister aware that, as we approach the 10th anniversary of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, there still remain 800 United Kingdom nationals uncompensated for the losses incurred during the campaign, some of them for sums amounting to £10,000? As we participated last year in giving $32 million of aid to Turkey through article 113 of the Committee of the EEC, has not the time come for more strenuous representations to be made to ensure that these people are compensated?

We have continued to make the strongest representations and have given support to ensure that British nationals in Cyprus are duly compensated. We regret the delays and continue to keep up the pressure.

Are not Moslem countries which are parliamentary democracies extremely rare? Turkey suffered a period of ferocious political and civil violence, followed by a period or martial law, and it is now trying to re-establish democracy. Does not Turkey require and deserve all our help and support throughout this difficult period?

I agree with my hon. Friend. We understand the problems that have affected Turkey over many years, and we commend the efforts that have been made, to put things right in particular, the elections that were held in November. We look forward to a continuance of the evolutionary process to restore democracy in Turkey.

Will the Minister remind himself and his hon. Friends that Turkey is a full member of NATO and as such should respect the central tenet of that organisation, which is respect for individual freedom? Is not the continual breach of human rights in Turkey utterly unacceptable? Will the hon. Gentleman make the strongest representations about the imprisonment of political prisoners, in particular that of Dr. Mahmut Dikerdem, the former ambassador, whose show trial was an affront to any normal standard of justice?

We understand the concern that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, but I can only repeat that we continue to make that concern known to the Government of Turkey and that that was done most recently last week on 19 January, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State met the Turkish Foreign Minister.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Government of Indonesia concerning violations of human rights.

We deplore violations of human rights wherever they may occur. The Indonesian Government are fully aware of the concern felt in this country at reports of human rights violations, particularly in East Timor. We do not believe that direct, formal, representations on our part would be helpful.

The Minister will be aware that more than 200,000 people have been killed in East Timor since 1975, following the illegal occupation by Indonesia. Will he ensure that no further arms are supplied to Indonesia until a ceasefire occurs, and will the Government also not supply arms that may be used to repress human rights?

There is varying evidence about the level of alleged abuse of human rights, and I am not sure whether it is right to put a precise figure on that. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this issue, and, as he well knows, human rights is a major factor in considering export licences for any arms. I assure him that we take that very fully into account when any applications affecting, Indonesia come before us.

Irrespective of the number of people who have been killed in East Timor, is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern among Conservative Members about the continued occupation of a country which has been denied self-determination, while at the same time we continue to supply arms to the Indonesian Government? What are the criteria for selling arms to such a country—whether or not it has friendly relations with the United Kingdom — without regard to what is happening about human rights?

I know that my hon. Friend also takes a close interest in this issue and I have discussed it with him. This and previous British Governments have at the United Nations supported East Timor's right to self-determination, and I am glad to reaffirm that. Human rights is a serious factor when considering applications for arms exports. I assure my hon. Friend that we take that fully into account.

Given the concern of Commonwealth countries such as Papua New Guinea and Singapore over Indonesia's current role, will the Minister give a categorical assurance that no Indonesian soldiers are training in this country?

There is no evidence of that so far as I am aware, but I shall have to confirm it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will take further international initiatives to prevent international terrorism.

We are committed to combating international terrorism and would indeed consider any new proposals very carefully. At the same time, extensive arrangements are already in existence, and our primary aim is to ensure that these arrangements work effectively.

During his recent visit to the middle east, did the Foreign Secretary discuss the role of the Syrian Government in permitting Iranian suicide groups to operate within Syrian-occupied Lebanon, and did not the Syrians provide logistical support for the horrific terrorist attacks mounted against the multinational force in Beirut? Given continued threatened Syrian hostility towards Jordan, will the Minister reassure us about the safety of the Queen, who is to visit Jordan in March?

My right hon. and learned Friend did indeed raise the terrorism issues to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Syria has repeatedly assured us that it does not support particular terrorist activities. We shall, of course, make sure that all appropriate arrangements are made for Her Majesty's visit to the middle east.

Do the Government need to take further steps beyond those contained in the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill which we shall discuss later today, as that measure deals with international terrorists operating here and using the United Kingdom as a safe haven? Will he particularly look at developments on extradition which have occurred in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee?

The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill to which my hon. Friend refers is, of course, primarily the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I assure my hon. Friend that we are satisfied that the Bill, as it stands, will give proper effect to our serious concern about the need to combat international terrorism and that our legislation should be consonant with that objective.

Presumably, the next convenient international forum will be the London economic summit in June. Will the Minister confirm that probably the most relevant area for progress would be that of the security of diplomatic personnel and premises? In the meantime, will the Minister press the French Government to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism, as there is some sign that they may be more inclined to do so now as a result of their recent experience with the Basques?

Previous economic summits have, indeed, provided a useful opportunity for exchanges between the seven Governments on methods of combating international terrorism. I expect that the London summit will provide another opportunity of ensuring that our cooperation in this important sphere remains as good as it should be. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's other question is that we have ratified a variety of international conventions on international terrorism, and we very much hope that all the other countries concerned will similarly ratify and give effect to those conventions in their national laws.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he is currently having with the Argentine Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding relations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government now have any plans to seek to establish diplomatic relations with Argentina.

We are holding no discussions with Argentina at present, but we have made clear our wish to restore normal bilateral relations. We will not enter into talks about the transfer of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands to Argentina.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are now in a position where we can be magnanimous? Does he realise that many hon. Members on both sides are disappointed at the lack of positive response to the news coming from the Argentine? Does he agree that we should seek commercial normalisation, at the very least, as soon as possible, and at least give some encouraging noises to that Government that we would welcome their participation in talks?

I entirely take the force of my hon. Friend's point. The message that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sent to President Alfonsin after the election of the democratic Government in Argentina was intended to pave the way towards more normal relationships. It is clearly right for us to seek to do so along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, and as I have said in previous statements, by seeking, for example, to begin improving commercial relationships between the two countries.

With Argentina fortunately restored to democratic government, is this not the right opportunity, as the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) has just said, to explore with the Government of that country all aspects of the future of the Falklands? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the news that about £7 million of public money has been spent on the erection of just 54 prefabricated houses in the Falklands is just one example of the growing, formidable price that this country is paying for the present Government's policy on the Falklands?

The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the Government have made it clear that there is no intention of embarking on negotiations about sovereignty, and that is compatible with everything that we have said and done about the Falklands so far. In those circumstances, it is right and proper for us to take prudent steps where necessary to secure the defence of the islands and their development. It is in that context that the houses which the hon. Gentleman mentioned were urgently needed, by way of replacement, and as accommodation for new personnel. The final cost for the supply and erection was high for a number of reasons, but the original contract price had been adhered to. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I have already made plain, that we should now look for ways of improving our relationship with the Argentine Government, and we should do that by concentrating first on those areas where practical steps towards agreement are most likely to be possible at an early stage.

If the Foreign Secretary is sincere about improving relationships with Argentina, is not the establishment of diplomatic relations a necessary first step, from which better relations generally with that country will follow?

It would not be right to contemplate the establishment of diplomatic relations unless and until there is a declaration by Argentina of its willingness to end the state of hostilities. However, the absence of such a declaration, as I have made plain, does not rule out the wisdom of looking for ways of improving our relationships. I emphasise that that process must start in the areas which are most likely to be practicable, probably in commercial matters.

In the interests of establishing this sort of good will, is not the time ripe for the Government to renew their offer to the Argentine Government to facilitate arrangements for the Argentine bereaved to visit the graves of their relatives on the Falkland Islands?

Yes, I am glad of the opportunity to do that. Since the summer of 1982 we have made it clear on a number of occasions, through the International Red Cross, that we are prepared to facilitate the repatriation of the Argentine dead. That offer remains open. Secondly, we have made it plain that we shall place no obstacle in the way of a visit of the sort described by my hon. Friend by a bona fide group of relatives who meet the conditions that we have suggested and are prepared to go under arrangements made and supervised by the International Red Cross.

Will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that immigration into the Falkland Islands will not be ruled out as a subject for discussion between the two countries?

I shall consider the point raised by the hon. Gentleman.

As the Secretary-General of the United Nations is charged with the task of seeking to bring about talks between ourselves and the Argentine Government, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this might be an appropriate moment to make our position known to the Secretary-General, to ascertain whether a dialogue could be initiated?

I think that the Secretary-General of the United Nations had our position made plain to him in the course of the work that he did before reporting to the General Assembly towards the end of last year. It seems that the right way of setting about this process is to seek to improve relationships through the intermediation of the protecting powers, and to move from that to try to establish a normal pattern of business between the two countries.

As the fortress Falklands policy, according to the Government's own figure, will cost the British taxpayer £2 million a year for the next three years for every family of Falklanders, and as much of that money is wasted through incompetence, as we have seen recently in respect of housing, will Her Majesty's Government show the same readiness to meet the democratic leader of the Argentine half way as they have demonstrated in offering to meet the Communist leader of the Soviet Union halfway? Will they undertake negotiations with the democratic Government of Argentina about the future of the Falklands without preconditions, as they have already undertaken negotiations with the Communist Government of China about the future of the 6 million people in Hong Kong?

The parallel which the right hon. Gentleman sought to draw at the end of his supplementary question is characteristically inappropriate. The fact that cannot and must not be overlooked is that the Falkland Islands were the subject of an unprovoked armed invasion, which took place a very few weeks after the Argentine Government of that time had been purporting to negotiate on the future of the islands. Having said that, it is sensible for us to be willing, as we have made clear, to seek a better relationship with the democratic Government of the Argentine. We have welcomed their election, but we must invite them to have some respect for the right of those who live on the Falklands to self-determination.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics comply with their human rights obligations under the Helsinki agreements.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make urgent representations to the Soviet Government with regard to the detention in mental institutions of sane persons for political or religious reasons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether there has been any improvement in the human rights record of the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics since the Helsinki review conference in Madrid last September.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further steps Her Majesty's Government can take to ensure that the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics carry out their responsibilities under the Helsinki agreement.

I regret to say that there is no evidence of any change in the Soviet Government's human rights record since the conclusion of the Madrid conference, whether in relation to religious minorities, treatment of individuals confined to mental institutions or in any other regard. But, together with our allies and partners, we shall continue to follow closely the Soviet Union's actions and take suitable opportunities to draw the Soviet authorities' attention to their commitments undertaken at Helsinki and Madrid.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the British delegation at the Madrid conference made strong protests to the Soviet representatives about the contined harassment of Soviet citizens who have tried to monitor infringements of the Helsinki accord by their own Government? Will he also say whether the opportunity was taken to make further representations to the Soviet authorites about the fate of Mr. Raoul Wallenberg, the brave Swede who saved 100,000 Jews from the Nazis and was imprisoned by the Soviets? They have declined ever since to say whether the man is alive or dead. Are not the world and Wallenberg's family owed an explanation of what has happened to him?

Our delegation in Madrid took a number of opportunities to raise individual cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The case of Raoul Wallenberg was raised most recently by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), when he saw the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister, Mr. Kornienko in Moscow last spring.

Will the Secretary of State clarify the difference between his good words in the House and his actions? Did he take the opportunity to raise that matter when he spoke to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm? If he did not do so, will he give an undertaking to raise it at their next meeting?

I did, indeed raise that matter. I have had two meetings with Mr. Gromyko, one in Madrid last September, and another in Stockholm last week. On both occasions I raised the matter in general terms and cited particular examples. As I told the House yesterday, when I was in Stockholm I took examples of people whose cases were more serious because they were ill, such as Shcharansky and Bonar Sakharov.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House what the difference is, apart from colour, between a white Government prosecuting and oppressing black people, and a white Government oppressing and prosecuting white people? Should not the Gleneagles agreement, the Helsinki final act and the United Nations human rights charter apply equally? All of us should try to adhere to them.

My hon. Friend has raised two questions which can be, and often are, linked together. It is right that we should not apply double standards in our approach to human rights matters in any part of the world, but it must be recognised that any action that is taken to repress human rights which is based specifically and exclusively on colour discrimination has an especially unattractive flavour to it.

I raise a matter arising from the Helsinki agreement. What steps are the Government taking to press for the release of Solidarity and KOR leaders, who are imprisoned in Poland and are threatened with political show trials?

The hon. Gentleman must understand that this sort of question arises in a number of contexts. In most cases, our formal status is very limited. We have to choose the right way and best way of making such points. We shall take full account of the hon. Gentleman's question as opportunities arise and as we consider our relationships with countries such as Poland.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Helsinki agreement, which was freely accepted by the Soviet Union, declares that respect for human rights is an essential factor for peace? When, from time to time, the Soviet Union loudly declares its love of peace, would it not be worth while quietly to point that out?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I made that point in the House yesterday and, indeed, I made it to Mr. Gromyko in Stockholm last week. If people are shown conduct of the kind with which the House is concerned in terms of human rights, it is bound to have an effect on their perception of their country's disposition towards peace and international relations.

The Foreign Secretary knows from previous exchanges in the House that there is a bipartisan approach to human rights. We join the Government in their condemnation of the abuse of human rights in the Soviet Union. However, we wish that the Foreign Secretary would show that same zeal and enthusiasm for human rights in Chile. The Government recently abstained from voting at the United Nations on the issue of human rights.

The Government take every appropriate opportunity to raise questions of human rights. We have had exchanges in the House on Chile on other occasions, and I shall not go into that now. I do not believe that there is any simple connection between the international atmosphere and the way in which the Soviet Union conducts itself in such affairs. I wish that the matter were as simple as that. However, it is true that, for example, Jewish emigration was running at over 50,000 in 1979, but was below 3,000 in 1982. It is important to continue pressing the Soviet Union for an improvement in its behaviour in that respect and for an improvement in the whole international atmosphere, leading towards a dialogue between both sides of the iron curtain.

asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on any recent initiatives taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise at the United Nations Organisation the failure of Iran and Iraq to respect Security Council resolutions calling for an immediate ceasefire in the Gulf war.

We shall maintain our efforts at the United Nations to try to achieve a ceasefire and settlement acceptable to both Iran and Iraq. We have urged both sides to respect United Nations Security Council resolution 540 and to make use of the United Nations Secretary-General's good offices in working for a negotiated end to the war.

Is my hon. Friend aware that that dreadful war has now been going on for more than three years, that at least 200,000 people have been killed and that nobody seems to be doing very much to stop it, or taking much interest in it? Why is the Security Council not in permanent session to try to implement those resolutions, and why are the diplomats not giving it a much higher priority?

I entirely agree about the seriousness of the war. It is now in its fourth year and there have been very heavy civilian and military casualties on both sides. It is of great concern to us and many other Governments that the war should come to an end. Considerable diplomatic efforts are being made to try to ensure that Security Council resolution 540 is implemented. The British Government are taking an active diplomatic part in that in the United Nations and elsewhere. We are doing whatever we can.

In pressing on countries the need to accept such resolutions, particularly in the middle east, is not one of the difficulties that one country, Israel, continually violates both Security Council and General Assembly resolutions? When it is suggested that other countries should concern themselves with Security Council resolutions, it does not help if a major friend of this Government constantly ignores them.

To return to the main point, the most recent resolution, No. 540, which was passed in October by the Security Council is a balanced resolution. That is what matters. It is fair to both sides and if the war is to come to an end, as everyone wishes, it should be pursued on that basis. We hope that the Secretary-General will be able to send his representative out, if there is enough common ground, to hold discussions and to see whether there is a way forward.

Does not the news today of the possible deployment of Soviet SS12 missiles in Iraq chill even the Minister's blood and diplomacy? Is it not time that we began a major diplomatic offensive to try to get both parties to adhere to existing United Nations resolutions? Will the Government continue to adhere to their policy of not sending arms to either side in the conflict, and include in that the military support ships now lying at Yarrow's shipyard, Glasgow?

Our priority is to do what we can, hearing in mind that we have only a limited amount of influence with the parties concerned. However, to the extent that we have it, we should use it. Without any shadow of doubt that is our priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware drat we take a neutral position towards the war and do not believe that it is right to sell lethal arms to either side. We believe that all our efforts should be on the diplomatic front.

asked the Secreary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what initiatives on nuclear disarmament he has supported in the United Nations in the past three years.

We remain committed to supporting, at the United Nations and elsewhere, initiatives from any quarter that are likely genuinely to advance the search for security through negotiated arms control and disarmament measures. Thus, over the past three years we have supported the United Nations General Assembly resolutions concerned with the prevention of nuclear war. the intermediate nuclear force negotiations and nuclear weapon-free zones.

Is the Minister aware of how appalling the Government's overall record is in opposing so many major nuclear disarmament initiatives at the United Nations? How, for example, do the Government justify voting against a motion for the prohibition of nuclear weapons tests?

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that he is absolutely wrong to suggest that the British Government have not been constructive in appraching the resolutions, not only in the last three years, but in the last year, that have come before the United Nations General Assembly. The criteria we adopt when we examine resolutions are whether they are likely to lead to a positive prospect of arms control agreements, and that means that they must be verifiable and they must be balanced. We look at the langauge of each resolution with those criteria in mind. That surely is the most sensible approach.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the unlikely event of the French proposal for an international satellite monitoring agency under UN aegis being implemented, some of the first pictures brought back will be of continued Soviet SS20 launch site construction? Is this not a very serious matter and the sort of thing to which the United Nations should address itself?

I agree with my hon. Friend that verification is one of the key aspects of making any progress on arms control agreements, and any evidence of abuse of that in previous agreements does not help the process. What we must hope is that the Soviet Union will now fulfil what Mr. Andropov is reported to have suggested, and that is that the Soviet Union would like to see progress in arms control. The most sensible way in which it can prove that is to come back to the talks in Geneva, and the sooner the better.

Since, according to the Foreign Secretary yesterday, Her Majesty's Government do not dispute the findings of the world's leading scientists that both the super powers now have at least 100 times more nuclear explosives than they could use without destroying their own people—never mind what those explosives did to the enemy — will the Government now support the demand of the overwhelmingly majority of the United Nations for a freeze of development and deployment of nuclear weapons so that at least countries cannot continue adding yet more dangerous nuclear weapon to stockpiles that are grossly excessive for any conceivable military or political purpose?

Of course the right hon. Gentleman is right. We all want to see an end to the escalation of the arms race. What really matters, if I may suggest this to the right hon. Gentleman, is not a freeze, but an actual reduction. This is what we have been proposing; indeed, this is what President Reagan has been proposing. If one goes for the policy of suggesting that we should have freezes, in many cases—in the case of intermediate nuclear weapons—one is ossifying an imbalance in weapons, in this case a monopoly on the part of the Soviet Union. There is, therefore, no incentive for reductions. What we want to work for is reductions, not freezing, of weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what improvement there has been in relations between the United Kingdom and Syria, following the Minister of State's visit to that country.

Although we disagree on a number of issues, we seek to maintain a constructive dialogue with the Syrian Government. I had useful talks with President Assad and the Syrian Foreign Minister during my visit to Damascus on 11 and 12 January.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that it is essential for peace in the Lebanon that Syrian troops should get out of that sad country, along with the rest, which they have persistently refused to do? If so, did he express this view to President Assad, and what response did he get?

We did, indeed, have a full discussion of the Lebanon, and we made it plain to the Syrian Government that the withdrawal of Syrian troops from the Lebanon is one of the features necessary to secure an ultimate settlement in that country. The Syrians of course take the view that their troops are there on a different basis from those of other countries. They have other difficulties, in particular in relation to the 17 May agreement. We pressed them and, indeed, have pressed others, not to let that agreement become an obstacle to progress. I urged the Syrian Government to be flexible over arrangements that would have to be made for the withdrawal of all foreign forces, including their own.

In his talks with President Assad, was my right hon. and learned Friend able to point out clearly that Her Majesty's Government remain firmly committed to resolution 242, which calls for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from all Arab-occupied territory, including Golan? Will he do everything in his power to try to help to improve relations between Syria and Jordan, as that would play an important part in any subsequent peace negotiations?

Most of my time with Ministers in Syria was devoted to the immediately pressing topics, geographically and practically, arising out of Lebanon, but I made plain the Government's view that the way forward to a settlement of the main Arab-Israel dispute had to be founded essentially on the propositions contained in the Venice declaration. I did not have an opportunity of discussing relationships between Syria and Jordan, but I note the point that my hon. Friend made.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that now that the ceasefire talks have broken down for the umpteenth time and the talks for national conciliation between the various factions in the Lebanon have also broken down, in part because of American intervention on the side of the Gemayel Government, the time has come when Britain should take the initiative in organising the withdrawal of the so-called multinational force from the Lebanon?

The right hon. Gentleman must understand that the participants in the multinational force, together with much moderate opinion in the middle east, believe that the precipitate withdrawal, along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind, of the multinational force would be quite irresponsible. It would undermine the prospects of success for the Lebanese Government; it would damage the prospects of reconciliation there, and it would run the real risk of promoting a new outburst of bloodshed, which the right hon. Gentleman would be the first to regret.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects the EEC Council of Foreign Ministers to discuss relations with the United States of America.

The Council discusses such matters whenever necessary, but at present has no immediate plans to do so.

Will the Minister impress on his European counterparts the need to put every pressure on the United States not to reduce its budget deficit, its PSBR, because that would only create further unemployment in America and greater unemployment in western Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom? Is it not fair to say that every time the British Chancellor of the Exchequer requests a reduction in the budget deficit of the United States he is asking for greater unemployment in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Gentleman has the unique distinction of being about the only person in Europe to hold that point of view.

Will my hon. Friend and his colleagues in Government take every opportunity at EEC Council of Ministers' meetings and elsewhere to try to get agreement in the Community, and hence with the United States, on the need to avoid international economic warfare, whether it be through subsidies, quotas or any other mechanism? Is he aware that if the Government are serious about looking for public expenditure restraints, not to speak of cuts, we must remember that this country alone spends about £500 million a year on export subsidies and that if we were to get a satisfactory international agreement, that would be a saving well worth making?

My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter. I agree that it is not only the responsibility of the United States not to introduce any new import restrictions. Her Majesty's Government argue strongly in the European Community that in seeking to resolve the problems of the Community we should not try to do so at the expense of increasing protectionism from the point of view of the Community's relationship with the United States or with other countries.

What initiatives will Ministers take regarding a reduction of the arms race and the possibility of suggesting some initiatives on nuclear disarmament? Do EEC Ministers support the initiative taken by Premier Trudeau in trying to get the five countries that produce nuclear weapons together to achieve a reduction?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the EC does not itself take a position on defence issues. He will be equally aware that those European Community members who are also members of NATO strongly support the position of the United States on the disarmament negotiations and hope that the Soviet Union will soon return to the negotiating table.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans must be somewhat puzzled about what they should do to get things right, since they were first criticised for exporting too many dollars and now they are criticised for importing too much money from other countries? Could not the Americans easily reduce their overseas deficit by reducing the number of forces in western Europe? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Americans remain invaluable and trusted allies of the West and that we would do well to recognise that?

I unreservedly agree with my hon. Friend's final remark. I hope he shares the view that the presence of United States' troops in Europe is an important part of the defence of the West as a whole, and in the interests of the West and of the United States.

Will the Minister reconsider his smart answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours)? Is the Minister aware that by answering in that fashion he proves that he is unique in Europe in that he has never read the valuable opinions of many European Governments who support my hon. Friend's view? Does he recognise that his answer has the support only of those conventional bankers who take the monetarist view which he and his Government support?

In the light of that supplementary question, I accept that there must be at least one other person who shares the view expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). The hon. Gentleman must not use simplistic arguments. He must be aware that not only the present British Government, but the Socialist Government in France, and other European Governments, hope to see a reduction in the American budget deficit because of the beneficial effect that that would have on interest rates around the world.

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

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

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made at ministerial level towards an acceptable solution to the current budget crisis in the European Economic Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further discussions he has had with other Ministers in the European Economic Community about the future of the Community; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made to secure the conditions he outlined on 1 December, Official Report, c. 1014, before any agreement is considered to increase the Community's own resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions on European Economic Community reform since the Athens summit.

I expect to attend the next Foreign Affairs Council which is due to meet on 20 and 21 February.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend be explaining to his colleagues at those meetings the growing impatience in Britain at the slow progress being made towards a solution to the budget dispute? Will he be announcing, albeit privately, that his freedom to manoeuvre in negotiations has been limited by the growing opposition on the Government Benches to linking a solution to the budget problem to an increase in own resources?

I have made it plain throughout the discussions that have been going on since Stuttgart last summer that there is a need for urgency in reaching a conclusion to that agenda. I have made it plain publicly and privately that we are all impatient to see a conclusion of the negotiations so that the Community can concentrate on a wider range of business, including new policy. The fact remains that, as at Stuttgart, the question whether there should be an increase in own resources is connected with the proposition that we there laid down that there must be effective control over agriculture and other spending and an equitable financial arrangement, and that there can be no increase in own resources unless both those requirements are met.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept the case for a clear distinction between the Council's legislative and deliberative functions? Can he reassure the House that progress has been made towards the completion of the internal market and the elimination of non-tariff barriers?

I think that there is reason to be impatient about the progress towards the establishment of an internal common market, including removing non-tariff barriers within the Community. I believe that it is important that we should press ahead with what are known as new policies in that respect and which are at the foundation of the original concept of the Common Market.

Is it not ironic that, 11 or 12 years ago, when Britain was being taken into the Common Market by the last leader of the Tory party and the social dreamers who sometimes inhabit this Bench they did it on the basis of saving a sinking pound, rescuing the Common Market and solving all the problems of the Third world? After little more than a decade the Common Market is up to the neck in debt. The International Monetary Fund is cadging money from the United States. The Export Credits Guarantees Department is a busted flush. Right around the world financial institutions do not know how to find the money for 40 countries which are rescheduling their debt. Does it not prove to the British people that it has been a waste of time? What the Foreign Secretary ought to be doing is telling them—

Order. This is unfair to other hon. Members.

Has the Foreign Secretary got the question?

The hon. Gentleman has exposed a large number of propositions for brief examination. At the conclusion I must find that he is totally bankrupt of constructive ideas.

Does the Secretary of State expect any progress at the meeting in March to which he referred? Does he think that, because the different sides are irreconcilable, there will be no progress? If this is the case, what will the Government's attitude be at that time?

If there were to be no progress at the completion of the negotiations on which we embarked at Stuttgart, for the overwhelming body of opinion in the House, and certainly in the country, that would be a serious state of affairs. I believe that overwhelmingly people recognise that progress, particularly in the economic field, depends upon our maintaining the coherence and cohesion of Community institutions. That is why, as I made plain earlier, we must emphasise not just the urgency but the importance of moving towards agreement on these matters at the earliest possible stage.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who have supported the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "When?"]. Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us who supported the Government last week in some unpopular but necessary measures to curb expenditure and to stop waste will feel let down if, in trying to solve the budget problem. the Government agree to vast additional public resources and public spending going into economic nonsenses, such as a Channel tunnel? Can my right hon. and learned Friend give us a clear assurance that there will be no question of the Government agreeing to increased resources, giving us in exchange a half share in a white elephant?

The linkage with an increase in own resources is with the two propositions I have already announced. We stand by the two conditions laid down at Stuttgart — effective control of agricultural and other spending and equitable financing. There are many reasons for being wary about the implications of the Channel tunnel. It is certainly something which I, for one, would want to consider very carefully before regarding it as a proposition to be accepted with enthusiasm.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the Ministers, will he be more mundane and convey to them the concern expressed in steelmaking communities throughout the country about the threats from the Common Market to make further cuts in our steelmaking capacity? Will he tell them that our industry has already been cut to the bone whereas other Common Market countries have not adhered to the directives of that organisation?

I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry emphasises that point with the utmost clarity at the Council when this matter arises. It is also worth reflecting that our membership of the Community has enabled us to obtain protection from some of the disadvantages of world economic conditions that would have arisen had we been alone. It is also worth remembering that one of the features which add to the problems of the world's steel community flows directly from the high level of the United States federal budget deficit which we were talking about some time ago—the high level of the dollar.

Following the free elections in Turkey and the restoration of a civilian Government, with the support of the vast majority of the people of that country, will my right hon. and learned Friend press for the restoration of all rights for the Turkish people under the association agreement when the Council of Ministers next meets in political co-operation?

I shall certainly take account of what my hon. Friend has said. As he knows, therewas some discussion earlier today about the balance between progress towards human rights and the current position in Turkey.

Instead of preparing complacently platitudinous answers, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman reflect upon the fact that the principle achievement of the EEC in recent months has been the classification of the feathered hyacinth bulb as a vegetable?

I am impressed by the hon. Gentleman's astuteness in observing that.

My right hon. and learned Friend was quoted on Monday as saying that the EEC was stony broke and in a state of semi-paralysis. Does he expect that state to be changed in any way by the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament or the Commission, and is there anything that this House can do to help?

If we are to achieve the necessary reforms to deal with the problems which we have been discussing, the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament all have a part to play.

Will the Foreign Secretary try to achieve some sense of urgency? Is he aware that in time, if not in geography, we are now half way between the Athens and Brussels summits? If, as he says, the Community is in a state of semi-paralysis—a description more appropriate to the Foreign Office under the right hon. and learned Gentleman—why does he not admit to the House that there is no serious prospect of reaching any agreement which would justify his inviting the House to vote more tax resources for a spendthrift Community?

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original reply he would know that at Monday's meeting I stressed the need for substantial progress, in the hope of reaching agreement by March, and that I emphasised the need for detailed work to be done. Throughout that meeting and many others I have done all that I can, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to stress the sense of urgency that is needed. If we achieve an appropriate settlement of the budgetary problem and a proper mechanism to control imbalances, Britain will pay less, despite an increase in own resources.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what specific political initiatives he proposes to ensure that the next summit meeting successfully agrees arrangements for the payment of the United Kingdom's budget rebate.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in expediting the payment of the £457 million rebate due to the United Kingdom from the European Economic Community.

We are taking the necessary steps within the Council to ensure that there is no obstacle to the bulk of our 1983 refunds being paid by the end of March as in previous years. If it is to act responsibly, the European Parliament should lake the measures necessary to enable the Community to meet its obligations and thus strengthen the chances of success in the present negotiations, and not take discriminatory and unacceptable action against us.

My original question asked whether there was anything new in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's initiative. If there is not, how does he expect it to work this time when it has failed in the past?

Urgency, and indeed novelty, are added to the present negotiations by the growing perception that unless they are brought to a successful conclusion the Community in its present form will run out of money. There are many reasons, well perceived by the parties to the negotiations, why a successful conclusion should be reached, and the sooner the better.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, however great the provocation, and however tempting the short-term advantages of reacting to the failure to agree on the budget by withholding our contributions, the United Kingdom stands to gain more than any other member country from the strictest application of the rule of law within the Community?

The United Kingdom wishes to see obligations upheld and observed throughout the Community. If the Community does not meet its obligations, we must take steps to safeguard our position.

Will the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government did not take the European Parliament to the Court over its veto on the rebate? Will he give an unequivocal assurance that, if the rebate is not paid by the end of March, the Government will take immediate action to withhold all or part of our contributions?

It is our expectation that, as in previous years, we shall receive the bulk of the refund by the end of March. To achieve that we need regulations and transfer to the line of the moneys now in the reserve chapter of the budget. Steps are in hand to implement those procedures. The European Parliament can meet them by the end of March, and there is no reason why the money should not be paid then—

If not?

If not, as I said in answer to a previous question, of course we must consider what action is necessary to safeguard our position.