asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has yet fixed a date for his proposed visit to Israel.

It has not yet been possible to find a mutually convenient date, but I am looking forward to a visit as soon as that proves practicable.

When my right hon. and learned Friend, who personally has greatly improved Anglo-Israeli relationships recently, visits Israel, will he assure his Israeli hosts—whether before or after their general election—that Britain is totally committed to the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon and to the territorial integrity of all states in the region?

I am certainly in a position to do that.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that now that American policy in the Lebanon has failed the time may be appropriate for a separate European initiative on the middle east, perhaps on the lines of the original Venice declaration, to ensure secure boundaries for Israel and a homeland for the Palestinians?

The principles set out in the original Venice declaration remain valid, and it is important for the views of European countries and of the United Kingdom to be made clear along those lines. Nevertheless, the fact remains that it is essentially for the parties in the region to find the means of conducting the necessary negotiations between themselves.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his proposed visit to Israel will be welcomed as an even-handed and friendly gesture? Will he also bear in mind that there is a widespread feeling that there have been enough initiatives on the middle east and that the Venice initiative, which dealt the death knell to the Camp David agreement, and the withdrawal of the agreement between Israel and Lebanon, have done little to inspire the Israelis with any confidence in the outcome of negotiated peace settlements?

I appreciate that there are many circumstances in which the various parties involved may sometimes have little confidence in the prospects for peaceful negotiations, but the fact remains that means have to be found to bring together the two sides in an effort to arrive at agreements on terms that are acceptable to both.

As a prelude to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's visit, will he discuss with First Deputy Foreign Minister Kornienko next week the thoroughly destructive role that the Soviet Union has played in the middle east? Will he try to get Mr. Kornienko to agree that the Russians will use their considerable influence in Syria to induce that country to leave Lebanon so that all other foreign troops may leave also, as they have agreed to do?

I do not expect to have the opportunity to meet First Deputy Foreign Minister Kornienko next week. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) will be talking to him, and I have no doubt that he will take the opportunity to follow up the reference to middle eastern questions that I made in my talk with Mr. Gromyko at Stockholm in January. No doubt the role and part that can be played by Syria will be one of the questions that will arise there.

Perhaps I may make it clear to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that I shall not myself be seeing Mr. Kornienko, because I have long-standing plans which will take me out of the country while he is here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the negotiations on Namibian independence.

We remain committed to Namibian independence on the basis of free and fair elections in accordance with Security Council resolution 435. We welcome recent developments in Southern Africa, which must improve prospects for a settlement, notably the signing of a pact between South Africa and Mozambique and the progress towards disengagement of South African troops from Southern Angola.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What role has Britain played in trying to bring about a settlement in that area, particularly with Namibia and Angola in mind? What is his reaction to the recent statement from Havana in which conditions were set for the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola?

We have used numerous opportunities to impress upon all the parties the need to make the proposed disengagement of South African troops from Angola a success. That will undoubtedly increase the prospects for the independence of Namibia under Security Council resolution 435.

Is the Minister aware of the continued detention of a British subject, Mr. Alan Roberts of Warwick university, by the security police of Namibia, under security regulation AG9, without charge, for more than three weeks? For how long will the Government tolerate that incarceration of a British citizen? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to convey the British people's abhorrence at the detention without charge of this British subject and to deal with the problems faced by his wife and family?

The British consul travelled from Cape Town to Windhoek on 14 March specifically to see Mr. Roberts, and there have been a number of additional telephone conversations between our consular staff and Mr. Roberts. We have been in touch with the South African authorities, who have assured us that within a short period Mr. Roberts will either be released or charged with a specific offence. We have encouraged them to keep to that assurance.

Has my hon. Friend seen the interesting report by the all-party group that visited Namibia, particularly the conclusion that Namibia was not viable in practical terms as an independent state? Will he comment on that?

I have read with great interest the report to which my hon. Friend refers. It is the case that the independence of Namibia under Security Council resolution 435 is an objective shared by most of the United Nations and one which the South African Government have said they are prepared to support. In those circumstances, we must seek independence of Namibia. It may be that there is a need for friendly countries to consider what help to give to an independent Namibian Government, but that should not in any way deter us from the objective of an independent Namibia which is agreed by all the parties.

Will the Minister define the expression "all-party", which is rather loosely used?

The hon. Gentleman must address that question to the members of the group that has been referred to.

Is it the Government's assessment that South Africa is still persisting with its attempt to obtain a settlement outside the United Nations framework with Angola, the internal parties and SWAPO? Will he make it clear that for the Government the search for a peaceful settlement can come only on the basis of resolution 435?

Concern has been expressed at the recent statement by the South African Foreign Minister envisaging a round table conference of a number of parties in South Africa. We have been encouraged by South Africa's assurance that that is in no way intended to circumvent Security Council resolution 435. We have emphasised that we continue to see that as the proper, and indeed the best, basis for achieving Namibian independence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Costa Rica.

We enjoy very good relations with Costa Rica, whose democratic system is widely admired.

I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he tell the House whether he supports the United States arming those counter-revolutionaries based in Costa Rica who attack targets in Nicaragua?

The United States has no military or paramilitary forces in Costa Rica. We support every effort to put an end to violence in that region.

I welcome my hon. Friend's indication of the democratic nature of Costa Rica. Is it the Government's policy to encourage elections in Nicaragua and El Salvador in which all serious opposition parties take part?

Certainly we encourage the promotion of democracy in those countries, and indeed in all the region. My hon. Friend will have noticed our decision to send observers in response to the invitation to examine the conduct of the various elections in El Salvador.

Given that Costa Rica has a long, and in Central America one might say unique, record of liberal democracy, will the Minister review the Government's policy towards that country with a view to giving it any assistance that it may require, and will he say what assistance the Government now provide?

The hon. Gentleman will understand that we have to look very carefully at the disbursement of our aid, and normally aid for that region would be considered through the agency of the European Community.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level of our representation in Costa Rica? Is it the Government's policy to continue to represent themselves in neighbouring Nicaragua from the Costa Rican embassy, or are there any moves afoot towards the, some would think desirable, restoration of diplomatic relations between this country and El Salvador and Nicaragua on a direct basis?

I am pleased to advise the House, as, indeed, we advised the House a few days ago in a written answer, that we have decided to open missions at chargé d'affaires level in El Salvador and in Nicaragua.

The Government will know that we have long pressed for that change, and we welcome without reservation the upgrading of our diplomatic representation in Managua,—[HON. MEMBERS: "And in El Salvador."]—and, indeed, in El Salvador, but it so happens that Nicaragua is Costa Rica's neighbour and El Salvador is not. Do the Government now accept that the Sandanista regime in Nicaragua enjoys overwhelming popular support and that attempts by the CIA to destabilise that country, such as by mining the Soviet tanker bringing supplies to Puerto Sandino, are doomed and are a real threat to peace?

We are unable and unwilling to take the one-sided approach reflected in the hon. Gentleman's question. When a free and fair election has been held in Nicaragua, I suggest to the House that that would be the time to make a new judgment on whether that regime commands full support in that country.

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

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

There has been no recent progress in settling the various disputes in the region. We shall be keeping up our efforts to help bring about negotiated settlements to the Arab-Israel dispute, and the Iran-Iraq war. It is disappointing that the Lebanese reconciliation conference in Lausanne made so little progress, and it is to be hoped that Lebanon's leaders will make a further effort to reach a lasting settlement.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that at the core of the middle east problem is the need to resolve the problem of the Palestinians, and that there is no likelihood of that problem being resolved after the report that he issued on 8 February this year, drawn together by Assistant Attorney-General Judas Karp, outlining the repression of the Palestinian Arabs on the West Bank? If the Israeli Government are not prepared to tackle the repression of terrorism against the Palestinians in the occupied territories for which they are responsible, there is very little likelihood of the Palestinians and the Israelis sitting down together and discussing peace.

I am certain that the interests of the Palestinians on the West Bank have to be taken fully into account. We regard Palestinian self-determination as essential in any negotiated settlement. It has been our view for a long time—indeed, since the Venice declaration—that the PLO should be associated with any negotiations, provided that they themselves accept the Venice principles.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that King Hussein's recent remarks reflected the understandable frustration felt by Arab moderates at United States policy in the Middle East? Does he propose to be more active in trying to bring about an international conference aimed at achieving a comprehensive peace settlement, before a major explosion takes place again in the area?

I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say about the reasons behind King Hussein's recent remarks. I shall not comment on what they imply about relations between his country and the United States of America, but plainly the voice of King Hussein and of Jordan has an important part to play in the search for a settlement in that area. Indeed, it has a leading part to play in bringing together the voices of the moderate Arabs, who have such a contribution to make. I am not sure that the proposal for a conference has any part to play at this stage, but we shall certainly continue to press all the parties concerned to come together to consider the future.

What action has the Foreign Secretary taken to mobilise an international response to evidence of weapons being used in the Iran—Iraq war that are outlawed by the laws of war, in particular, chemical weapons?

We obviously view with great concern reports that chemical weapons have been used in that conflict. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a United Nations team is currently involved in assessing the evidence and I should not want to prejudge its findings. I have already made it clear that we would roundly condemn any violation of the 1925 Geneva protocol.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share the view of the Americans and others that the greatest present obstacle to peace in the Gulf is the attitude and policy of the Iranian Government? If so, wilt he make that clear to the House?

We deplore the continued conflict in the Gulf and have been urging both parties to take steps to bring it to an end as soon as possible. A whole series of attempts have been made to achieve mediation. Many people have tried to achieve that, both inside and outside the Security Council, including the United Nations Secretary-General. Every such effort should be sustained.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, now that King Hussein has delivered the coup de grace to recent American policy in the near east, the main danger to world peace and Western interests lies in interference with freedom of passage for oil supplies through the Gulf as a result of the war there?

I cannot give a specific answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last point. As he will appreciate, the rates fluctuate according to the circumstances as they are seen at any particular time. However, I undertake to make some further inquiries about that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the potential dangers of the Iran-Iraq war and the importance of ensuring that before considering any question of military or other action to clear the straits if they became blocked all diplomatic channels should be exhausted. I also agree about the importance of ensuring that, if events move in that direction, the Soviet Union is advised of the nature of any action or initiatives in prospect, because it would be serious if there were any misunderstanding in that respect.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many civil servants in his Department have visited Oman since January 1981.

Our middle east department records indicate that at least 187 civil servants from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have visited Oman since January 1981. This figure includes 146 duty visits to the British eastern relay station at Masirah.

With regard to two particular civil servants, Mr. Michael Alexander, the overseas secretary at Downing street to the Prime Minister, and Mr. Ivor Lucas, an ambassador in the middle east, is it true that either of those two gentlemen advised the Prime Minister not to raise at the palace in Salalah the question of the contract to build a hospital in Oman whilst it was known to the Omani authorities that Mark Thatcher, the Prime Minister's son, acting as a consultant, through Monteagle Marketing, to Messrs Cementation International Ltd. was in Salalah at the same time?

The question would be relevant only if the Prime Minister had, in fact, raised any such question in the context that the hon. Gentleman suggests. That is not the case.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet representatives of the Chilean Government.

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

Will the Foreign Secretary consider having an early meeting with the Chilean Government to press upon them the continuing violation of human rights in Chile and also to make clear to the dictatorship that the view of the British people is that if these violations continue we should sever all links between this Government and the dictatorship in Chile?

We regularly make clear our concern about the observance- of human rights and the continued violation of human rights in Chile. Only last week we voted in favour of the resolution of the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. This called on the Chilean authorities to respect human rights and to extend for a further year the mandate of the United Nations special rapporteur.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if Opposition Members were to swallow their paranoia and go to Chile they would themselves be able to make those representations on human rights, and probably with more effect than they have done from their armchairs in the Tea Room? Does he agree that if they went to Chile they would be able to give some assistance to the Centre-Left party, which wants very much to come quickly to democracy?

I am happy to agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I add that if Opposition Members were to swallow their paranoia on everything, they would suffer from considerable indigestion.

We on this side do not intend to go to Chile on trips that are paid for by the authorities. Can the Minister tell the House what steps will be taken to try to persuade the Chilean authorities to expel Rauff, the notorious Nazi war criminal and mass murderer, so that he may stand trial in West Germany? Is it intended simply to accept "No" from the Chilean junta, or will the British Government press the United States in particular to exert pressure on the Chilean authorities?

We have supported the request by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States Government to the Chilean Government to permit the extradition and expulsion of Walter Rauff. The Chilean Government's reply rejecting that request has been received only recently, and is being studied.

The Minister will know that we welcome the United Nations vote as a recognition by the Government of a further deterioration in the human rights record of the Pinochet regime. Moving from the human rights record to the Chilean naval contract and others, is it true that the Chilean navy has concluded negotiations for the purchase of HMS Hermes, HMS Antrim, two type 22 frigates and 24 Sea Harriers?

There has been no development on those potential arms sales negotiations since the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend on 7 December. Certain negotiations are in process, but none has been concluded.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when last he met the Papal Pro-nuncio; when next he expects to do so; and if he will make a statement.

There has not, as yet, been an opportunity for my right hon. and learned Friend to meet the Papal Pro-nuncio, nor is any meeting currently planned. Archbishop Heim did, however, call on my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State on 23 February.

Will my hon. Friend seek an early opportunity to meet the Papal Pro-nuncio for general contact reasons and in particular to express the great concern felt by Christians of all denominations, in the House and outside, about the continuing persecution of the Roman Catholic Church in Poland by an atheist regime, as expressed most recently by forbidding schools to put crucifixes and other religious symbols on classroom walls?

It is open to His Excellency the Papal pro-nuncio to see either my right hon. and learned Friend, the Foreign Secretary or any other Foreign and Commonwealth Minister. We sympathise with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and attach the greatest importance to religious freedom in Poland and elsewhere.

Despite the threat to religious freedom in Poland, has not Cardinal Glemp, in obedience to the Pope, required his clergy to abstain from political activity? Might not His Excellency the Pro-nuncio have a word with the hierarchy here on this matter?

I must resist the temptation offered by my hon. Friend to intervene in Vatican politics and diplomacy.

If the Foreign Secretary or any of his junior Ministers meet the Pope, will they ask him how much the Vatican Bank lost as a result of the failure and bankruptcy of the Banco Ambrosiano?

The question referred to the Papal Pro-nuncio, not the Pope. We are encouraged by reports that progress has been made towards a settlement of claims by creditors. The part played by a number of British banks has been welcomed.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the urgent appeals coming out of Poland for the international community to intervene on behalf of the Solidarity leaders and members of the KOR who have been imprisoned for some years, some of whom are being grossly ill-treated, and none of whom are charged with offences that would appear in the calendar of any Western country? If arrangements are being made to see the Papal Pro-nuncio could that matter be discussed with him, with a view to raising the international community's ire on this subject?

I take careful note of what my hon. Friend says. Our concern is for religious and other freedoms in Poland and elsewhere—for example, the freedoms that we thought we had secured under the Helsinki agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to India.

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

I understand the Foreign Secretary's difficulty in visiting India at present. However, is my hon. Friend aware that some of my constituents with relations in India are worried about the recent disturbances in Kashmir and the Punjab? Will the Minister express those anxieties to the high commission in London?

Concern over what is happening in the Punjab is felt by all of us. It is a matter concerning internal political developments in India. We sympathise with the Indian Government over the level of violence. We believe that the differences between India and Pakistan about Kashmir should be settled by the two Governments. We hope that no worsening of the difficulties will occur and, certainly, that there will be no development of violence.

Has the Minister read the final document issued after the non-aligned conference in New Delhi a year ago, which said that the non-aligned countries were gravely concerned about the deployment throughout the world of foreign nuclear missiles, including cruise missiles, and about the severe impact of the arms race on developing countries, since three-quarters of global expenditure is undertaken by the developed countries? If those matters were brought up during a meeting with Mrs. Gandhi, would the Foreign Secretary be uneasy during the discussion?

We also are concerned about continuing and increasing expenditure on arms, but our primary concern must be for the security of the United Kingdom and our allies. We therefore look to the Soviet Union to echo the concern that we have expressed and to respond to the numerous Western overtures.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Durant) is a good illustration of the mistake made by the Government in allowing dual nationality under the British Nationality Act?

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The British Nationality Act made a positive contribution to race relations, but that matter is more properly one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

If the Foreign Secretary goes to India, will he make it abundantly clear to Mrs. Gandhi that the British Government have no intention of joining in any demands for self-determination for the Sikhs in the Punjab?

I certainly give that assurance.

As the "Easter Eye" programme has caused consternation in India by giving publicity to the case of the Kashmiri terrorists, will the Minister take this opportunity to express the condemnation and horror of the Government, the House and the British people at the assassination of Indian diplomat Mhatre?

We have expressed to the Indian Government our condemnation of the extraordinary and alarming assassination and our great regret at the incident. With regard to the television programme "Eastern Eye", we understand the feelings of the Indian Government. The Indian high commission is in direct contact with the Independent Broadcasting Authority and with the television company concerned.

If my hon. Friend makes representations to the Indian high commissioner, will he draw his attention to the fact that India has curtailed exports of tea, which has distorted and increased the price of tea on the world market, especially in the United Kingdom? Will my hon. Friend find out from the high commissioner whether there is any opportunity for a further increase in the amount of tea exported from India, especially to the United Kingdom?

I have not made or envisaged any representations to the high commissioner on that, but I will certainly look into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on recent developments in Southern Africa.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

Does the Minister accept that South Africa's deals with Mozambique and its proposed deals with other countries in that region have been described as the carrot and stick approach? The Minister may approve of the carrot in referring to the area's stability, but does he approve of the stick when tens of thousands of South African troops have invaded that region and brought the stability to which he refers with the deaths of thousands of citizens of Angola, Mozambique and elsewhere?

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the historic agreement between South Africa and Mozambique has been welcomed by the Governments of both countries, by the OAU and by other front-line states as a development that they can understand and support. I hope that all hon. Members welcome the agreement, which will significantly reduce tension and increase stability and further co-operation in southern Africa.

Does my hon. Friend welcome the recent speech of the President of Gabon urging SWAPO to lay down its arms and enter into the multi-party conference in Namibia with a view to helping that country towards independence and helping it to meet the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 435?

We are happy to welcome all speeches that contribute to the ending or reduction of violence in southern Africa. We do not doubt that the best prospect for Namibia lies in free and fair elections, so that the people of Namibia may elect the Government of their choice.

Will the Minister confirm that South Africa remains a racist state in spite of recent reforms? Is the Minister aware that there is a lobby of the House this afternoon, with meetings in the Grand Committee Room, organised by the anti-apartheid movement? Will a representative of his Department be speaking at any of the meetings?

There will not be a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at any of the meetings, so far as I am aware, but I have told the anti-apartheid movement that I shall be happy to receive its representatives if they wish to see me, as I receive many people with different points of view on southern Africa. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The policy of separate development remains the basis of South African policy, despite the recent constitutional reforms.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now release all Public Record Office files on the Falkland Islands.

The hon. Member has referred to Public Record Office files on the Falkland Islands. I assume that he has in mind records from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its predecessor Departments which have been transferred to the Public Record Office. All of these have entered the public domain, with the exception of those embargoed for a period longer than 30 years under instruments issued by successive Lord Chancellors. I have no reason to vary those arrangements.

Why do we have to wait until 1991 to see the file of 1940 and of the Marquis of Willingdon's mission to Argentina entitled, "Proposals to reunite the Falklands Islands with Argentina"? People who talk about reunification cannot be very clear about our right to the islands.

As successive Governments have made clear, we have no doubt at all about our right to the islands. The document to which the hon. Gentleman refers was retained under procedures of which he is extremely well aware and which have been accepted by Governments of both persuasions.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's position on recent proposals in regard to the mutual balanced force reduction talks in Vienna.

The Alliance recognises that the East's 1983 proposals contain some progress towards a mutually satisfactory verification regime and has suggested that the two sides should look more closely at their differences in this area with the aim of bringing their positions closer together. But the West has also pointed out that the East's unwillingness to co-operate in resolving the dispute over the present size of its forces, and hence of the reductions that it must take to reach the agreed goal of parity at 900,000 ground and air forces, remains a major stumbling block to an agreement.

With the resumption of the talks after a three-month recess, could not the NATO side have been expected to have some proposals to put before the conference? Does the Minister agree that Britain, of all the NATO members, is the stumbling block to a more conciliatory attitude and the hope of making progress after 10 years?

I entirely reject the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. The United Kingdom, with other Western countries, is now reviewing the present state of negotiations to see what further proposals should be made. I emphasise that the main stumbling block has been the Soviet delegates' refusal to produce satisfactory figures on the present level of conventional Warsaw pact forces in Europe.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further proposals he intends to place before his European Community colleagues for the development of Community policies.

We have already put forward a number of proposals. In the absence of agreement at yesterday's European Council, no decisions could be taken.

Would it not be better to concentrate more attention on developing the Community and less on discussing the petty cash account?

My hon. Friend is entitled to his own view of the significance of the amounts involved, but the need to secure fair and lasting arrangements for the budgetary balance of the Community was one of the crucial features with which yesterday's talks were concerned. I do not think that the Community is likely to have the secure future that I know that my hon. Friend would wish for it unless we can resolve that question.

In setting aside the problems of the petty cash account, will the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that there are 14 million people unemployed in Europe today, and will he put forward constructive proposals to reduce that figure?

The number of unemployed in the European Community mirrors the situation prevailing in most parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise that one of the most important objectives of policies for the Community must be to reduce the number of people out of work.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to re-affirm our commitment to the goal of a truly free European market?

I am delighted to do that. Many measures need to be taken, some of which were discussed at the European Council meeting of the past two days, to ensure the removal of regulations and obstacles that interfere with the operation of a liberal market economy in the Community.

Will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to congratulate the Conservative group in the European Parliament on its sensitive timing in choosing this week, of all weeks, to publish a video praising the EEC for enabling Europe to speak with one voice?

I had no such hope, because there was no question of my doing any such thing. Considerations of all the questions before the European Council were directly related to each other and it was quite plain to all those taking part in the discussions that, unless we were able to secure agreement on the conditions to which we attached importance, there could be no agreement on the question about which the hon. Member is understandably concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he expects to meet his French counterpart to discuss official problems affecting the European Community.

I met my French counterpart at the European Council in Brussels this week. I next expect to meet him for discussions on European Community matters at the Foreign Affairs Council on 9 and 10 April.

How would my right hon. and learned Friend react if there was increasing development in Europe of the Nine, with us being left out?

The European Community is the community of Ten and it is important that it should be so maintained. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I worked so hard throughout the past two days to try to secure agreement on all the matters that were on the agenda.

Is it not true that during the negotiations the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister agreed to an increase of own resources to 1·4 per cent. from 1 January 1986 increasing to 1·6 per cent. in 1988? Was that not conceded until the point was reached where they could not settle the petty cash problem?

There is no question of any agreement or any matter under discussion before the European Council being conceded or accepted except upon the basis that the other conditions were also agreed. A number of questions were considered in a variety of orders at different stages of the proceedings. We acknowledged that a case could be made for an increase along the lines indicated by the hon. Gentleman, but we made it absolutely clear that it could be accepted only if our two conditions were satisfied. We made it equally clear that any such increase would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the European Economic Community has agreed to reform the common agricultural policy in line with his demands.

Considerable progress was made in the European Council towards establishing a mechanism for the control of Community spending, and particularly agricultural spending. We shall press for inclusion of such a mechanism in the eventual agreement that must emerge from these negotiations.

Does not last week's agreement on dairy products make it quite clear that, with an increase of £500 million in the expenditure on the common agricultural policy and an increase in butter and milk prices, the Government are as far as ever from getting our EEC partners to agree to major reform of the CAP?

It is quite clear that there is still a great deal to be done to achieve the reform of the CAP that will ultimately be necessary. The hon. Member must understand, however, that the operation of the CAP is also of interest and of benefit to the United Kingdom's agriculture industry and that the reforms on which agreement had been reached last week would themselves have involved very substantial changes, to the disadvantage of our community. It must, therefore, be a question of time before all these matters can be put in place.

My right hon. and learned Friend is a calm and sensible fellow. Will he exert his great authority in the Cabinet tomorrow to prevent the adoption of the ultimate folly, which would be for this country to break Community law by withholding our contribution?

There is, in fact, a later question on today's Order Paper which raises that subject.

Since the aim of the Government is, if not to reform fundamentally the CAP, at least to control its expenditure, when the European Community is approaching bankruptcy because of the spiralling costs of the CAP, is it not stretching our credulity as well as the English language to describe an increased expenditure of £0·5 billion as a success?

It depends by what standards the House is prepared to judge those matters. Of course, any increase is, in principle, to be deplored. That was one of the reasons why we were opposing so many other matters yesterday that would have involved a further increase. That remains our policy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress being made in the current negotiations on Common Market reform.

No Sir, but the hard decisions that the Community must take cannot be avoided. We shall continue to press for the reforms that are in the interest of the Community as a whole.

Is it not ridiculous to talk about a net payment of £4,700 million to the Community in 10 years as "petty cash"? Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that he will have the support of the vast majority of the British people in pressing for a fair and permanent settlement of the budget arrangements, particularly when all our payments are allied to a daily trade deficit of £20 million in manufactured goods?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's description of the importance of the issues at stake in the budgetary negotiations. That was the very reason why my right hon. Friend and I worked as hard as we did to try to reach agreement on that matter.

Did the proposals on the CAP meet the precondition of fundamental reform laid down by the Foreign Secretary?

The proposals on agricultural policy will be considered further at next week's Agriculture Council. They went a substantial way in the direction of reform, because to secure acceptance of a formidable reduction in total milk output was a very major step forward. One of the matters that concerned us yesterday was the extent to which that achievement was in danger of being eroded. Other steps—for example, in relation to cereals and other commodities—represented progress in the right direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes there have been in the Government's position on the proposal to increase the European Economic Community's own resources following the recent visits of European Government leaders to London.

None, Sir. There can be no increase in own resources without unanimous agreement between the member states, nor without the endorsement of Parliament. The two conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Stuttgart last year have clearly not yet been fulfilled.

If that is the position, and if the Government are to be taken seriously when they say that they may withhold Britain's budget contributions, how does the Foreign Secretary expect the public to understand the proposal to introduce next week a Bill that would grant an extra £100 million to the Commission?

That is a matter to which the Government will be giving further consideration.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it hardly behoves the Opposition to criticise Conservative MEPs and Members of Parliament for speaking with a united voice, when one can hardly describe the Labour Party as having a united voice on Europe?

I agree, as always, with my hon. Friend's judgment on the Labour party.

Does the Foreign Secretary remember that, over the past 10 years, the net cost to Britain of our membership of the Common Market has been £1·5 million a day? Does he further recall that during the yes vote campaign in the referendum nine years ago there was a slogan entitled "Jobs for the boys"? With the possible exception of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), who is never here for these debates anyway, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what boys have got jobs as a result of those 10 years of payments to the Common Market?

I recall that the Labour party attempted to complete negotiations for securing a reduction in the cost of the Community to this country and that it got an agreement that produced not a penny piece, whereas this Government undertook similar negotiations that secured a refund for Britain of £2,500 million.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although some of the agriculture proposals are welcome as a step in the right direction, they in no way reach his pre-condition of fundamental reform? Will he clarify his earlier answers by saying that the agriculture proposals themselves would not have justified an increase in own resources?

Before considering any increase in own resources, the whole range of decisions and their implications affecting a period of years ahead would have had to be considered and, indeed, it would have been necessary to secure agreement on the other two conditions about which I have already reminded the House.

May I press the Foreign Secretary further on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)? Does he not recognise that it would be an offence to the House, after the stalemate this week, to invite it next week to consider a Bill to grant another £100 million to the EC to stave off bankruptcy? If £100 million is not an increase in own resources, what does constitute such an increase? Why does he not drop that Bill from next week's business and in its place introduce a Bill to deduct from our 1984 payments the rebate for 1983, which his failure at negotiations has now lost us?

I do not accept that last comment in any sense. Both those questions are receiving urgent consideration by the Government, and the Government will advise the House about them in due course.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects Portugal and Spain to join the European Community.

Spain and Portugal want to accede to the Community on 1 January 1986. As I made clear to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on 22 February, we are working hard in the Community with a view to completing the negotiations this year so as to make this possible.

How damaging does my hon. Friend think that failure to reach agreement at the EEC Council will be to the entry prospects of Portugal and Spain?

I hope that it will not lead to any significant delay in the negotiations. The agricultural mandate has been agreed by the Community, and that is one of the main outstanding matters to be discussed with the Governments of Spain and Portugal. Naturally, the Community will not be able to give as much attention to this matter as it would have wished because of the outcome of the negotiations yesterday, but we still hope that the timetable can be adhered to.

When Spain joins the Community, will there be an end to the preferential tariffs which act against the export of vehicles to Spain from this country?

We have made it clear to the Spanish Government that, in our view and that of many other Community countries, one consequence of Spain's accession should be a substantial reduction in the level of tariffs which that Government impose against imports from other countries. If the negotiations resulted in such a change, motor vehicles would benefit from it.

Are not the Spanish Government seeking a lengthy interim period during which the tariffs would effectively remain in force? Can the Minister give us any news about that matter and tell us whether our Government are pressing for that period to be as short as possible?

It is likely that, as has been the case in similar negotiations with other new members, a transitional period will be agreed. We have, however, emphasised our view that that transitional period should not preclude a very sharp reduction from the outset in the level of tariffs against industrial imports.

The Secretary of State said earlier, in answer to my question, that the Government would not support an increase in own resources. Will the Government still support the accession of Spain and Portugal without such an increase?

The British Government have made it clear on several occasions that the accession of Spain and Portugal is highly desirable, for both political and other reasons. Very few who believe in the Community do not believe that the accession of Spain and Portugal is an essential requirement for its political development.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, as the Prime Minister has said from the Dispatch Box, there can be no question of Spain entering the Common Market until its position over the Gibraltar border is satisfactorily regularised?

I can give my hon. Friend a complete assurance in that respect. The Spanish Government are aware that it would be inconceivable for access between Spain and Gibraltar, after Spanish accession, to be different from access between Spain and other members of the European Community.

How can the Minister state that he is still sure that Portugal wishes to join the Community on 1 January 1986, when the Brussels debacle will mean that Portugal—which will be one of the poorest countries in the Community—will be a net contributor to its funds?

I am sure that the Portuguese Government will be able to speak for themselves with regard to their own interests. The hon. Gentleman is right. The existing budgetary arrangements produce arbitrary and artificial consequences. One of those would be that, unless special provisions are made for Portugal, Portugal would have the curious and unwanted privilege of joining the United Kingdom and West Germany as a net contributor. That effect emphasises the need for reform in the budgetary arrangements of the Community.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contingency plans arc in hand if the European Economic Community runs out of money.

If the Community is not to run out of money, the Commission must now propose, and the Council of Ministers must agree, the necessary measures to control expenditure.

As there is now a real possibility that the EEC will run out of money this year, is it not irresponsible of the Government to have no contingency plans of their own?

The greater the possibility, the greater the need for the Community to take the measures that are necessary to prevent that happening.

If a fundamentally reformed common agricultural policy is to be cheaper, why was it necessary for the Government to agree provisionally to increase own resources by 40 per cent?

I emphasise again that own resources were considered in the context of the entire Stuttgart agenda. There was no question of the Government accepting an increase in own resources for recommendation to the House had there not been agreement on all o [the other matters of that agenda, including our own important conditions.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Is it relevant to questions?

Yes. Now that the Prime Minister is back in the Chamber, and following your ruling yesterday, Mr. Speaker, on the Attorney-General's statement on picketing on Friday, which, as I understand it, was a sub judice matter involving Kent miners wishing to travel within the south midlands area of the National Coal Board to visit pits outside my constituency in Coventry, can you give me guidance and, through you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask two questions? First, how is it that Members of Parliament can ask questions on the interpretation of the legal definition of picketing when the Attorney-General's answers are put in written form on a Friday morning and are therefore not open to oral supplementary questions? Secondly, now that the matter is no longer sub judice, can you confirm that the Table Office will accept written questions on the Attorney-General's statement, as I understand that it was not prepared to do that yesterday because the Kent miners were still trying to defend their jobs from MacGregor's axe?

I really have nothing to add to what I said yesterday. If the matter is sub judice we cannot ask questions about it in the House. I made that plain yesterday and the whole House understands it. As to the written answer by the Attorney-General, which I have now seen but had not seen yesterday, I am not responsible for answers that are given in written or oral form. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down questions he should try to do so. I am sure that his ingenuity will enable him to do that.