asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement concerning the public funding of British Youth Council activities abroad in the last financial year.

The funding of the international activities of the British Youth Council is the responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the two largest political membership organisations of the council—the Federation of Conservative Students and the Young Conservatives—have withdrawn their membership because of Left-wing bias in the council? Does he think it right that the taxpayer, in the shape of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, should finance junkets to visit east European and Soviet countries, and, in one instance, to visit Havana to meet the youth wing of the World Peace Council, which has been described by the Foreign Office as a disguised arm of Soviet foreign policy?

We shall certainly continue to monitor the activities of the British Youth Council. I should say to my hon. Friend that, in addition to visits to Communist countries, the British Youth Council visits a number of non-Communist countries, but that is very much an issue that we shall keep under careful review. I should also point out that 40 non-political youth organisations continue to be in membership.

Is it not a fact—and will the Minister confirm — that the British Youth Council is in the forefront of activity designed to foster and improve the interests of young people in this country in international contacts with young people throughout the world? Will he therefore reject the allegations made by his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), and back the work that the British Youth Council is undertaking on behalf of all the young people of this country?

Certainly an important function is to coordinate youth activities in this country domestically and internationally, which is, of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's particular area of concern, but all those activities should be centred on genuine international co-operation. The British Youth Council should be careful to eschew political activities which are more appropriately the function of political parties than of this youth organisation.

Is the Minister aware that the general secretary of the British Youth Council is a boy scout, that the previous general secretary was also a boy scout and that virtually every youth organisation in Britain is affiliated to the British Youth Council, including organisations such as the scouts, the guides, the girls' brigade and so on, and that it would be absolutely wrong for the Young Conservatives to have the veto on the work of this important youth organisation?

I am aware of the facts which the hon. Lady draws to the attention of the House, but I repeat that it is important that the British Youth Council conducts its activities in those affairs which are appropriate to an international youth organisation. I assure the hon. Lady that the monitoring of those activities will remain the province of Her Majesty's Government.

As the Secretary of State is about to embark on a Foreign Office-sponsored junket to Moscow, will it be borne in mind that in present times of tension there is much to be said for continuing a dialogue with both East and West? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that most of the work done by the BYC is designed to foster a community of interest between East and West, which can only be in the interests of us all?

The Government certainly recognise the value of establishing a dialogue between East and West. I much hope that the response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary in Moscow will reflect the value of that effort.

I am in full agreement with establishing a dialogue between East and West, especially among young people, but should it not be a two-way traffic, and should not the Soviet Union respect, observe and practice—rather than only preach—the Helsinki agreement?

I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend.

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

As we have often made clear, we are ready for official talks with the Argentine Government on the normalisation of our relations. Such talks cannot include discussion of sovereignty over the Falklands. The preparatory exchanges which we initiated through the protecting powers are continuing; their details must remain confidential. Our aim in the talks will be to make progress on a range of practical questions, but it will be difficult to restore full diplomatic relations until the Argentines have formally declared a cessation of hostilities.

How long is the Fortress Falklands policy to continue, given the enormous drain not least on our defence resources? Now that there is a new regime in Argentina, should not the Government be big enough to restore normal diplomatic relations in their fullest sense?

There is no question of any Fortress Falklands policy. The airfield is being constructed substantially to meet the recommendations of Lord Shackleton, which were made for strong economic and developmental reasons. Its role in facilitating rapid reinforcement of the islands is only secondary to that. But, as I have made plain, there is no question of negotiation over sovereignty. Against that background, as soon as the new democratic Government were elected in the Argentine, we made plain our intention to try to move towards the establishment of normal diplomatic relations, as I indicated in my earlier reply.

Is it not more normal to advocate a Munich before a war rather than afterwards? Is my right hon. and learned Friend on his guard against the gnawing of rats who want to surrender by diplomacy the sovereignty that was defended by arms? Is it not a complete red herring to suggest that the defence of the Falklands is too expensive once the airfield is there?

My hon. Friend's last point is manifestly right. I emphasised in my original answer and subsequently that there can be no question of discussing the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. It is on that basis that the other contacts I described have taken place.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the long-term best interests of the Falkland islanders and, indeed, the security of the Falkland Islands can be ensured only within an international framework in which Argentina plays some part?

It is obviously in the interests not only of the Falkland islanders but of the Argentines and ourselves that we should take steps towards restoring normal relations between the two countries, including diplomatic relations, on the basis that I have described.

Will my right and learned Friend bear in mind that the undertaking that he has reiterated at the Dispatch Box today not to discuss sovereignty at all with the Argentines makes it impossible for them to negotiate any of the other issues that he has outlined today? Will he therefore make it crystal clear to all of us why the Government believe that sovereignty may not be discussed, or even put on an open agenda?

The Government take the plain view that to embark on a discussion of sovereignty in those talks or in any other way would not be helpful to the objective that my hon. Friend has in mind. If my hon. Friend is interested—as many hon. Members are—in making progress towards restoring more normal relations, he should accept that those talks should be directed not to the question of sovereignty but to the many other issues upon which it is possible to rebuild confidence and relationships between the two countries.

American interest rates having gone up since the Cartagena conference, what is the former Chancellor's, or Her Majesty's Government's, assessment of the real danger that now exists, given the attitude of the hardliners at Cartagena, of great pressure on the Argentine Government and perhaps on other Latin American Governments to default, given their domestic problems?

Negotiations between the Argentine Government and any other Latin American Governments and their creditors must remain a matter for the parties themselves. Plainly, the IMF has a role to play in that, and economic policies to reduce interest rates, on the desirability of which we focused at the London economic summit, would have their part to play.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the visit of two honourable but foolish Members to Argentina may well lead the Argentine Government to think that we are willing to negotiate although we are still nominally at war? Is it not time for the Argentine Government to give way on that factor so that real discussions can take place? Until such time we can discuss nothing.

The presence of some of our honourable colleagues in Argentina arises from the invitation of the Argentine Senate. They are not officially inspired, nor are they intermediaries. The answers that I am giving about the Government's policies represent those policies. I agree that it will be difficult to move in the direction that my hon. Friend and many others would wish so long as Argentina does not formally declare a renunciation of hostilities.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that, contrary to the impression that he sought to give to the House in an earlier answer, military spending on the Fortress Falklands policy is costing £2 million a year for every family of islanders and is imposing a serious strain on our armed services? Does he agree that since it is now two years since the end of the fighting and six months since Argentina elected a democratic Government who opposed the invasion and have renounced the use of force in pursuing their claim to the Falklands, it is long past the time when the Government should have restored normal diplomatic relations and started to negotiate about all the outstanding issues between our two countries?

I cannot share the right hon. Gentleman's view of this matter. He must understand that the expenditure still being incurred on the construction of the airfield is directed towards that construction which, as I have already said, has a substantial developmental value. Once that has been completed, it should be possible to reduce the levels of permanently stationed forces on the islands, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in the defence White Paper. The airfield will remain available for developmental value.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth countries concerning the recent visit of Mr. Botha to the United Kingdom.

A number of Commonwealth Governments made their views known to us both before and after the visit. We stressed that the visit signalled no change in policy on our part. It was recognised by many, although by no means all, as a useful opportunity to make our views plain on a number of issues of common concern to Commonwealth countries.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the visit was an insult to the majority of people in Britain and an insult to most Commonwealth countries? If the Government are serious in their attitude to apartheid, why does the right hon. Gentleman not make a categorical statement that in no circumstances will Coastguard be sold to South Africa?

We have received no approach to supply to South Africa aircraft of the kind described by the hon. Gentleman. Any application for an export licence will be examined on its merits. The Government will, of course, fulfil their obligations under the arms embargo.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend yet heard any adverse comment from the Opposition on the fact that Mr. Botha was received by the Pope? Are not the Opposition guilty once more of double standards?

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does the point of order relate to this matter.

Yes, it relates directly to this question. Is it customary for His Holiness the Pope to be held responsible for his or anyone else's behaviour?

Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his questions.

I accept responsibility for answering for the Government. In that respect I am glad to endorse what my right hon. Friend said—that the Opposition in this matter, as in so many others, are guilty of double standards.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Order. I shall take points of order afterwards.

The Foreign Secretary stated that several Commonwealth countries referred to certain issues. Did one matter concern Mr. Nelson Mandela, who has now been imprisoned for 20 years? What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude to that issue?

A number of Commonwealth countries have urged us to use our influence with South Africa. The meeting provided an opportunity for doing that. Mr. Nelson Mandela's case was raised during that meeting and we raised the matter in a general statement of our strongly held views on apartheid.

Is not jaw-jaw better than war-war in the case of South Africa and Argentina? Is not personal contact in these matters far more valuable than megaphone diplomacy? Should not our Commonwealth friends be told that it would serve their interests far better if they spoke personally to Mr. Botha and expressed their detestation—we all share that feeling—for his internal policies rather than to engaging in the present boycotting?

My hon. Friend is correct. As I have said, members of the Commonwealth have urged us to use our influence in South Africa. The visit provided an opportunity to do that. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that we took that opportunity.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this country receives representatives of unsavoury Commonwealth Governmnents not least Mr. Mugabe, who has detained a former Prime Minister of his country for more than six months without bringing him to court? Will my right hon. and learned Friend pay tribute to the part that South Africa plays to the benefit of the whole of southern Africa by way of food production and economic aid? Will he pay tribute also to the agreements that were recently entered into with Mozambique and Angola?

Of course we attach importance to our relationship with South Africa, but within that context we continue to hold certain constraints on that relationship. We have fully upheld our international obligations to South Africa. We recognise, as my hon. Friend points out, the value of an agreement such as the Nkomati agreement, as a step towards stabilisation and a reduction of tension in South Africa.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Mr. Botha's visit was described in The Times as a diplomatic triumph for Mr. Botha and an unmitigated disaster for the blacks in South Africa, and that that view is widely held throughout this country? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman observes the constraints on Britain's relationship with South Africa to which he referred, will he explain how it was possible for a South African officer at the naval base in Simonstown to betray British and NATO defence secrets to the Soviet Union on a scale which is said to be without precedent since the war?

I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to a case the facts of which extend over many years, perhaps even to the period when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I am not prepared to answer a question on that aspect without a great deal of notice. It is foolish to describe the meeting between the two Prime Ministers as a matter of disaster or triumph, victory or defeat. Vital questions arise in southern Africa. A number of Western and Commonwealth Governments have important views on those matters, which we were able to put direct to the South African Prime Minister and to discuss with him. Nothing but good can flow from that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are currently detained in Saudi Arabia; how many complaints he has received about the lack of assistance given to those subjects by the British authorities; and if he will make a statement.

On 24 June there were 27 British citizens detained in Saudi Arabia. I am glad to say that Her Majesty's embassy in Jedda has reported this week that at least seven British prisoners should be released under the Ramadan amnesty which is about to be announced. The embassy expects that one additional British prisoner will be released under a special order.

I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not a matter of great concern that there are now more than 20 British citizens in Saudi Arabian prisons? In view of the great concern last August when four British subjects were flogged in Saudi prisons, has the Minister protested to the Saudi authorities about the brutal and inhumane treatment that British subjects have received, and will he issue a list of the people now held in Saudi gaols?

I accept that there is concern on that point, and the Saudi authorities have been made aware that the administration of strokes is abhorrent to British opinion, but they have not been moved by our representations. We understand that the ordeal is intended not to inflict severe pain. It is intended more as a humiliation than as a physical punishment. When we have involved ourselves in this matter, we have discovered that a number of the prisoners concerned have actually preferred that punishment to an extended prison sentence.

Have the Government objected to the recent detention of a British military attaché by the Israeli Government?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Gulf states.

Since his visit to Saudi Arabia in January, when he had valuable discussions with the King and other Ministers, my right hon. and learned Friend has met the Kuwaiti Foreign Minister on 3 April, the Bahraini Foreign Minister on 13 April and the Omani Foreign Minister on 10 May.

I welcome the Minister's statement. Is he aware that the Iraqi high command announced today that it had struck at two naval targets in the Gulf? Does that not emphasise the serious risks and dangers to British national interests in the Gulf? What assurances can the Minister give that the contacts to which he has referred will continue in the British national interest?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we continue actively to have contact with all those interested in keeping the peace in the Gulf, as well as helping in mediation between the two countries concerned. We are deeply concerned about the events of the past few weeks in that part of the world and are co-operating closely with those states to see whether the atmosphere can be calmed.

Bearing in mind that a comprehensive peace settlement in the area remains our prime foreign policy objective, what steps do the Government intend to take to support King Hussein in his peace-making efforts, especially in a period when American foreign policy is completely paralysed?

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, that goes rather wider than a question about the Gulf, but I assure him that we and, indeed, the whole European Community remain actively concerned to see progress in the Arab-Israeli dispute. We have a very close relationship with Jordan. If King Hussein puts forward constructive proposals as a basis for a dialogue, we shall certainly encourage and support them.

Can the Minister give some indication of the discussions that we have had with the United States and the Gulf states in relation to freedom of passage through the Gulf and, in particular, the Straits of Hormuz? Will the Minister further say what instructions are given to our vessels there about terms of engagement, and what assurance we can have of the safety of the British flag fleet operating in the Gulf?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Security Council has passed two resolutions, both of which have advocated freedom of navigation in the international waterways of the Gulf. We, with our friends the United States and the European Community, actively supported those resolutions. We want the problem to be resolved in diplomatic terms, and we are putting all our diplomatic efforts in that direction.

Did my hon. Friend, while holding discussions with the Gulf states, raise with them the question of the six British subjects who are incarcerated without charge or trial in Libyan gaols by Colonel Gadaffi's regime?

Order. I think that the hon. Member's question goes rather wide of the Gulf.

Does the hon. Gentleman, and does the Foreign Secretary, accept that nothing will radicalise opinion more effectively in the whole of the Gulf area than American intervention there?

I can say clearly that all of us who supported the Security Council resolutions are concerned that there should be freedom of navigation in the international waterways, but that all efforts and priorities should go towards settling this by diplomatic means. That remains our priority.

As events in the Gulf today as well as in the past few days show that the area could easily become one of maximum sensitivity very quickly, are the Government showing sufficient urgency in bringing together the Soviet Union and the United States of America and to convey to them that they have a joint interest in the crisis? Secondly, are the Government trying some initiative to stop the flow of arms to Iran and Iraq, including spare parts from this country?

The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will be going to Moscow next week. I can say without any doubt that he will raise the problem of the Gulf with the Soviet Union and discuss it with them. We remain in very close touch with the United States on the issue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the Government of the Soviet Union since the economic summit.

We remain in regular contact with the Soviet Union on diplomatic channels. I shall be conducting substantial discussions with the Soviet Foreign Minister on a full range of international and bilateral issues when I visit Moscow next week.

Is it not fair to say that, apart from the summit's statement on democratic values, it failed to address the real problems of tension between East and West and, in particular, escalating expenditure on armaments? If the justification for the deployment of cruise in Britain was the deployment of SS20s in Eastern Europe and—

What has this to do with economics?

A great deal. If the deployment of SS24s and SS25s arises from the deployment of cruise in Britain, unless there is control of escalating expenditure on armaments, which is harming the economies of the Western world, will there not inevitably be war?

It is sad that the hon. Gentleman's perception of the realities of the situation are as limited as they are. A great deal of time at the London economic summit was devoted to discussion of East-West relations. The Heads of State and Foreign Ministers devoted much time to the methods that could be followed to make headway on arms control talks. Nothing is a higher priority in the minds of those Western leaders. There was a Western initiative on the table at every arms control negotiation. The summit declaration on East-West relations made it plain that the United States was willing to return to arms control talks anywhere, at any time and without prior conditions.

As this is an international human rights matter, not just an internal domestic policy matter, will my right hon. and learned Friend and Her Majesty's Government continue to press their protests against the treatment of Dr. Sakharov and his wife with as much force as the French have done?

As my hon. Friend said, this is a matter about which we are greatly concerned, inside the House and elsewhere. I have mentioned the case on one or more occasion in talks with the Soviet Union. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade mentioned it to a Soviet Minister in Moscow last month. Certainly, the case deserves to be pressed firmly.

When the Foreign Secretary is in Moscow, will he make it clear that Her Majesty's Government would support negotiations for the completion of a comprehensive test ban treaty and for a ban on military activity in outer space, both of which have recently been proposed by Mr. Chernenko and could form a useful way of breaking the deadlock between the Soviet Union and the United States in this area?

Both topics deserve discussion in the context of my talks. With regard to armaments in outer space, the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that the North Atlantic Council statement from Washington welcomed the fact that the United States was prepared to embark on discussions on research in that area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Afghanistan.

We should like to see a lasting and peaceful settlement on the basis set out in successive United Nations General Assembly resolutions. We look to the Soviet Union to open the way to such a settlement by declaring its willingness to withdraw. The Soviet military presence has caused immense suffering and destruction. Meanwhile, we shall continue to provide humanitarian assistance to the Afghan refugees who are the unfortunate victims of this conflict.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend fully aware of the scale of this crime against humanity, perpetrated by the Soviet Union in its occupation of Afghanistan over the past four years, which has forced 4 million people, or one in four of the Afghan population, to flee their homeland to seek sanctuary in Pakistan or Iran? Will my right hon. and learned Friend leave his Soviet hosts next week in no doubt whatever as to the sense of outrage that persists in this country on this subject? Furthermore, will my right hon. and learned Friend, on his return, take steps to see that British aid and, in consultation with our allies, Western aid to the Afghan nation in its hour of need is increased from its present abjectly abysmal level, including the provision of air defence equipment for the Afghan resistance?

My hon. Friend rightly raised several important questions on this subject. I entirely agree about the tragic impact of the invasion. At least one fifth of the pre-invasion population of Afghanistan have fled their homeland. I entirely agree also about the scale of the Soviet operation there, involving well over 100,000 Soviet troops in that country. I entirely agree about the scale on which this action has been condemned year after year in the United Nations and elsewhere, with overwhelming resolution. I have great sympathy for the remarkable effort of the Afghan people to defend themselves against this foreign invasion. It is clear from the continuing resistance that they are receiving some help. I am not prepared to make any further comments.

Is it not time that the Secretary of State explained the role of Stewart Bodman, the British agent who was shot last year in Afghanistan? Is it not an open secret that the British Government are shelling out £3 million per year to the so-called Mujtahidin and other irregular forces in that country?

I have nothing to add to what I said in answer to a question on 18 June, on the first point, and I am not prepared to add to what I have already said on the second.

Will the Secretary of State explain why the Russians, or anybody else for that matter, should pay much attention to condemnations of crimes against humanity, such as are being committed in Afghanistan, while this Government and British industry are reputed to be the second largest exporter of repressive technology in instruments of torture to tyrannous regimes around the world?

The intemperance of the premise to the hon. Gentleman's question illustrates how misleading it is. To introduce such a concept in this context is totally absurd. The House, the United Nations and the world know that for four years over 100,000 Soviet troops have been deployed in Afghanistan. Quite rightly, that is regarded as indefensible.

When the Foreign Secretary is in Moscow next week, will he raise with the Soviet leaders the question of the outrageous behaviour of the Soviets in Afghanistan? If he does so, will they not throw back at him the policies of the United States in Central America, which the British Government seek to defend in every possible way? Is not the moral stance of the West in regard to areas such as Afghanistan mightily jeopardised by American policy in Central America?

It may well be that that point will be thrown back at me, but neither my position, the position of the West, not any of the causes that we want to advance, will be helped by the hon. Gentleman's attempt, even unconsciously, to draw a parallel between those two questions. That is quite unacceptable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he has been able to obtain from the Iraqi Government that they will cease using chemical weapons in the war with Iran; and whether he has made representations to them following evidence of injuries suffered by a British subject, Mr. Benford, a British Broadcasting Corporation sound recordist, who was exposed to nerve gas while attempting to cover the war in Iran.

We regret the injuries suffered by Mr. Bedford. We have already made clear to both sides in the Gulf conflict our strong condemnation of the use of chemical weapons.

I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. In view of the fact that this is the first verified and significant use of these weapons anywhere in the world for more than half a century, and because the prospect of the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is almost as terrifying as the prospect of the escalation of nuclear weapons, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government, together with other friendly Governments, ought to be seeking to exercise even more influence than they have so far sought to exercise to persuade both sides in this horrendous war to forsake the use of such weapons?

I share the hon. Gentleman's views. We have strongly condemned the use of these weapons, and the Governments of both Iran and Iraq are aware of our view. We totally condemn the use of chemical weapons.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments at the latest European Council meeting.

As hon. Members will know, we reached agreement at Fontainebleau on a lasting and fair settlement of the budget problem which has been under negotiation for the past year. This is a good deal for Britain and for the Community. Heads of Government also set the course for future Community policies on other matters. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a full statement to the House immediately after Question Time.

I do not wish to anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement, but, in the wake of the excellent budget agreement between the United Kingdom and the Community, does my right hon. and learned Friend not feel the need to remind Labour Members and certain other hon. Members that practical measures for working together and for integration in the Community do not in any way lessen intrinsic national sovereignty, and that, indeed, they enhance it? Should we not now get to work to build up one coherent Community, as we should have done aleady?

I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. As he points out, the settlement of this long-running dispute enables the countries of the Community to get to work on the many measures that can and should be taken to establish and expand the working of the Common Market and to promote closer partnership in the Community.

Is it not amazing and scandalous that at a time when Europe has never been so close to nuclear destruction, when there have never been so many unemployed and so much poverty, time was found to discuss at Fontainebleau such subjects as a European flag, a European anthem, and a European honours list?

The hon. Gentleman should not conclude that a great deal of time was wasted or taken up in discussing those matters. However, it would be foolish to disregard such matters altogether.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, as a result of the agreement that was reached this week, the amount of money that Britain contributes to the Community will increase? Can he confirm the report in The Times this morning, which says that if the formula that has been adopted for the recalculation of Britain's budgetary contribution had applied in the past four years, we would have contributed and extra £115 million a year?

The point that my hon. Friend must understand is that, in the absence of these negotiations being brought to a conclusion, there would have been no system for the abatement of our contribution. As a result of what has now been secured we shall have a substantial and lasting reduction in our contribution. We have made a substantial change in the entire relationship between us and the rest of the Community.

Will the Foreign Secretary respond to figures that have been produced by the Presidency of the European Council and which purport to show that this formula, if it had been in existence in previous years, would have cut our earlier rebates? So that the House can be clear on the matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain how the VAT expenditure share formula is calculated? Will he clarify how he is able to describe the settlement, which will produce smaller rebates, as a good deal for Britain.

The hon. Gentleman fails to address himself to the central point. Under the system that has existed until now, refunds have had to be negotiated each year. As he has said, that has become increasingly difficult from year to year, as we have seen in regard to our 1983 refund. Under the arrangements thus far, the level of our ad hoc repayments has been declining from year to year and there was no assurance of the existence of any such arrangement this year or in any future year. What is now in place is an automatic system for reduction of our contribution on a durable basis. That is on the basis of a correction. On the hon. Gentleman's second point, the basis that has been agreed covers the great bulk of our payments to the Community, since the gap means that our levies and duties are counted as if they were paid at the VAT rate. It means that in any increase in expenditure along those lines we shall pay only 7 per cent., rather than 21 per cent., on a lasting and durable basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the conclusion is substantially better than any alternative that has so far been available. It is overwhelmingly better than the disastrous conclusion that was arrived at by the Labour Government.

asked the Secretary of Stale for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities currently await a Government reply.

There are no reports from the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities currently awaiting a Government reply.

When ray hon. Friend considers social regulations for road transport, will he bear in mind the importance of equal enforcement by all member states? In the absence of that, member states which try to enforce the regulations will be seriously disadvantaged competitively. What assurances can he give us on that?

Although that matter is primarily for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, I can assure my hon. Friend that the equal enforcement of regulations in this regard would be an important priority for the Government, for the reasons to which he has rightly drawn attention.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions there have been between Ministers in his Department and other European Economic Community Governments on the Spinelli report on European union.

None, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear to EC Governments that the British Government do not support any further loss of sovereignity, as would be initiated by acceptance of the Spinelli report on European union, and will not be pushed into a steady slide towards federalism, which is inspired by Communists?

Although there are some aspects of the Spinelli report to which we do not object, we have made it clear that there are some proposals which we cannot support. I draw special attention to the proposal to phase out the national veto after 10 years and the proposal to increase the powers of the European Parliament. We have made it clear that those are the two main recommendations which we cannot support.

As the Foreign Secretary made some mildly approving noises about such bizarre concepts as a European flag, a European national anthem and a European honours list, will my hon. Friend in mind that those aspects of a possible European union would be anathema to the vast majority of British people?

Naturally we are prepared to listen carefully to ideas which would be in the interests of the European community as a whole. We have always made it clear that the primary interest of the United Kingdom is to concentrate on practical issues, and practical areas of harmonisation, which would bring undoubted benefit to the people of Britain and to the Community.

Is the Minister aware that in setting his face against the increase in the powers of the European Parliament he is setting his face against the countless European candidates fielded by his party, who have been calling for an increase in the powers of the European Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman is not correct. All of the Conservative candidates for the European elections, including the successful Conservative candidates, fought under the Conservative party manifesto, which makes the views of the Conservative party exceedingly clear.

Will the Minister amplify that reply and tell us whether his comments apply to the 16 recently elected Conservative Members of the European Parliament, who during the last Parliament voted for the Spinelli report?

I am aware that there was a free vote in the European Parliament on that matter. A minority of Conservative Members may well have taken a different view on that issue, but at least they do not belong to the Labour group in that Parliament, the vast majority of whose new Members do not even support our membership of the European Community. They were elected under false pretences, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has for increasing the effectiveness of the European Economic Community.

Our ideas for increasing the effectiveness of the European Community and promoting its further development were set out in a paper which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to other Community Heads of Government earlier this month.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the British Government are more likely to attain objectives that are of real value to the United Kingdom, such as the removal of cross-border formalities and obstacles to trade in invisibles, if we do not indulge in cheap sneering at symbols, which may seem ridiculous to us but which are of considerable importance to people who value European unity?

We do not underestimate the importance of symbolic matters in the European Community, or elsewhere. We believe that with the full and heavy agenda, to which the Community must address itself in future, it is right to concentrate on the practical areas of integration, which will benefit the peoples of Europe.

May I draw the Minister's attention to the threat to the tinplate sector of the British steel industry caused by a recent EC directive? Will he do what he can to ensure that that directive is put aside?

The hon. Gentleman will wish to address that question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Government have played a prominent role in ensuring that Britain's involvement in reforms of the steel industry are fair and equitable to the British people and with respect to our overall Community obligations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that two of the most effective proposals to make the European Community more acceptable to the Scots would be to stop the dumping of raspberries from Poland in the United Kingdom, and to remove the barriers to the sale of Scotch whisky to Greece?

My hon. Friend will agree that the views of the Scots about the European Community are likely to be only marginally influenced by raspberries. I accept that the Community is meant to stand for free trade between member countries and that it is right and proper that that should apply throughout all the various sectors, including those of particular importance to Scottish exports.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in bringing the expenditure on the common agricultural policy within his definition of effective control.

The March European Council agreed that in future the rate of growth in agriculture spending will be less than that of the own resources base. A few days later Agriculture Ministers took important decisions to cut agriculture prices, reduce milk production, and limit the payment of guaranteed prices for products in, or likely to enter, surplus. A text giving guaranteed effect to the March decision will have to be agreed.

Although we are to hear the Prime Minister's statement on the latest conference, is it not a fact that today's press reports about the outcome of the conference are almost unanimous that huge sums of money will continue to be poured towards French and German farmers?

Those are not the press reports that I have seen. The press reports have almost unanimously welcomed the agreement and said that they believe that it is in the United Kingdom's interest and that the Government were right to agree the proposed terms.

Since a good deal of money provided under the CAP goes to help the production of food surpluses which we cannot consume, when my hon. Friend discusses these matters will he consider whether some more of the resources under the CAP might be used for conservation and ecological approaches to agriculture and the countryside in order to achieve a better result?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one of the Community's prime objectives must be to address itself to whatever reforms are necessary to remove the undesirable burden of huge surpluses which are of no interest to the Community or, ultimately, to the farmers who live within the Community. It is right and proper that we should consider using expenditure more sensibly and productively.

Does the Minister appreciate that this year, despite the spring settlement, agriculture expenditure will exceed available resources by one fifth? Does he not grasp the fact that the only way to bring agriculture spending under control is to reform the structure? We have no hope of that reform if we vote increased own resources for the EEC to waste on ever larger surpluses.

I recall that in the last year of the Labour Government agriculture spending in the Community represented 78 per cent. of its total expenditure; today it represents 65 per cent. of its expenditure. Members of the Community have agreed unanimously that it must in future represent a smaller proportion of the Community's expenditure. If the House is fair, it will agree that the Government have achieved far more than Labour Members did in terms of progress and controlling services.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what concessions Her Majesty's Government have obtained on the rebate proposals tabled by the President of the Commission at the Brussels summit.

Agreement has now been reached on a lasting, systematic settlement of the budget imbalances problem. The agreement retains the main elements of the text put forward in Brussels in March, but will give the United Kingdom a better deal than was offered at the Brussels summit.

Although events have overtaken the tabling of the question, does the Foreign Secretary agree that, after all the Prime Minister's boasting about a just and lasting settlement, the Government have failed miserably on both counts? It is not just, because we shall still be paying vast sums; it is not lasting, because as soon as the money runs out the Community will be back for more. Is this not just a cut and run after the elections?

It is no such thing. The settlement represents a good deal for Britain and the Community. The most important point is that it is a lasting system which can be changed only with the unanimous agreement of the member states. We were offered a far less satisfactory settlement at Brussels. We have now secured a settlement which is better than any previously available, and entirely right.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the increase in own resources is a gradual requirement and a ceiling below which increased spending must be justified.

That is right. That is why we also attach importance to the completion of the agreement required at Brussels for the establishment of firm and effective texts for the maintenance of budgetary discipline, and equally the agreement on a reduction in the share of the Community budget being devoted to agricultural expenditure.

When the Foreign Secretary referred to the agreement as being a lasting one, and as it is connected to a 1·4 per cent. own resources limit, how long does he expect lasting to last?

As long as it takes—[Interruption]—The right hon. Gentleman must be patient and wait for the rest of my answer, which is, as long as it takes to convince the Government of this country and the House of Commons that a case for change has been made out. A unanimous decision of the European Council and the agreement of the House of Commons are necessary before there can be any change in the 1·4 per cent. 'VAT ceiling that it is proposed to establish. There can be no change in the system now established unless that unanimous agreement is forthcoming.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in relation to the payment of the rebate due to the United Kingdom as agreed at Stuttgart.

Heads of Government agreed that the refund due to the United Kingdom for 1983 should no longer be blocked. Foreign Ministers meeting after the European Council in Fontainebleau yesterday have already adopted the regulations. It now remains for the European Parliament to agree to the transfer.

Is it not a disgrace that after the Prime Minister's noise and bluster she has ended with a whimper, and given away the British position? As there is no control over agricultural spending, and as the Prime Minister has agreed to an increase in own resources, is it not clear that we shall be paying ever more money to the Community in future?

No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and has been told more than once today, the text agreed at Brussels on budgetary discipline provides for agricultural expenditure to take a gradually declining proportion of the own resources that are available. Moreover, the agreement on own resources will be ratified only when the measures necessary to guarantee the effective application of those principles have been adopted. That is the work now before the Finance Ministers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

I shall take points of order after the statement.