asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any response to his representations to the Soviet Foreign Minister earlier in the current month regarding individual cases of abuse of human rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Regrettably there has been no Soviet response to my right hon. and learned Friend's representations.

Is my hon. Friend aware that from 1 August the Soviet Union will abolish prepaid customs duty parcels from the United Kingdom, and that that will make it extremely difficult to send clothing to Soviet citizens? Will my hon. Friend undertake that that matter will be raised at the Universal Postal Congress in Hamburg at the end of July and that strong protests will be made about it?

Several matters will be raised at the Universal Postal Congress. We shall give thought to my hon. Friend's suggestion.

I accept the disappointing response that the Minister has given, but does he agree that while we require harmonious relations with the Soviet Union, they are not mutually exclusive from representations on human rights? Notwithstanding that disappointing response, will the Minister give the House an assurance that that subject will not be forgotten in future discussions?

The hon. Gentleman is correct. Not only are those subjects not mutually exclusive, but, as Great Britain and the Soviet Union are signatories to the Helsinki agreement, it is right and proper that any failure to observe the responsiblities incurred under that agreement should be drawn to the attention of the country concerned.

Will my hon. Friend bring to the notice of the Soviet authorities, particularly the ambassador in London, the concern felt by many Christian groups about the welfare of Valeri Barinov, a gentleman being held in Leningrad psychiatric hospital, and bring home the concern felt about people being held throughout Russia for their Christian views?

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the persecution of individual Christians and Christian groups. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State was in Moscow, he raised the case of Father Gleb Yakunin with the Soviet authorities. We must also use available opportunities to draw to the Soviet Union's attention other individual cases that may be important.

While everyone should support Government representations to the Soviet Union, how consistent is the British position on this matter? Have we made representations to the Government of Oman on the treatment of Mr. Robin Walsh in a prison in Oman——

That is very wide of this question, I am afraid.

I spy strangers.

Order. If the hon. Gentleman persists, that will merely take time out of Question Time.

I spy strangers

The Foreign Secretary will be aware of the change in the Soviet Union's penal code under which those who come to the end of a period of detention may be subject to automatic further custody. For example, that could happen to Vladimir Poresh, whose term of custody should finish on 1 August. Will the Minister make representations on that, and can he be specific about the precise representation at the Universal Postal Congress in relation to interference with mail from this country to the Soviet Union?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to one of the more distasteful new policies introduced by the Soviet authorities — the automatic resentencing of those whose sentences have been properly and fully completed. With regard to the Universal Postal Congress, there have been allegations of interference with mail, and there are various other problems of the kind to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) referred. Not only the United Kingdom but other countries will use the opportunity of the Universal Postal Congress to draw attention to those abuses.

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

We are concerned at the continuing threats to stability in the middle east. As my right hon. and learned Friend and his European Community colleagues made clear in their statement on 27 March, we are ready to support any constructive steps by the parties to the Arab-Israeli dispute and to do what we can to help end the Gulf war and bring stability to Lebanon.

My hon. Friend will no doubt wish to consider the implications of the Israeli election results. Bearing in mind that the United States' foreign policy will continue to be paralysed until after the presidential elections, should Europe not now take a more active role and, in particular, should not the European Community reconsider the favoured treatment that is given to Israel while that country remains in defiance of international law both on the West Bank and in south Lebanon?

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is too early to judge the outcome of the Israeli elections—we watch the elections with interest. In the meantime, he will know that the Foreign Ministers of the European Community issued a strong and clear statement on 27 March about the Arab-Israeli dispute. It made our position absolutely clear, not only about the principles which we regard as of fundamental importance for a settlement, but about the importance of non-acquisition of territory by force—that is resolution No. 242. My hon. Friend will find that statement robust and clear.

Is it the Government's view that progress towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the middle east means the involvement of the Palestine Liberation Organisation in any discussions?

The statement of the European Community shows that the PLO should be associated with any discussions that take place. Everybody knows that the PLO is in an uncertain position. We are watching its developments carefully. I believe that a clear statement by it of the right of Israel to exist within secure boundaries and a clear renunciation of terrorism would help the peace process.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind in any deliberations concerning the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria, that secure boundaries for Israel are of considerable importance and the fact that there is already a Palestinian state in the middle east, namely, Jordan?

No, Sir. We have a clear view of this matter. It is absolutely true and right that Israel has a right to exist within secure boundaries, but we regard the West Bank and Gaza as occupied territories and the United Nations resolution No. 242 supports that view. At the same time, we regard it as of fundamental importance to any prospect for a settlement there that the Palestinians have the right to self determination. That is a cardinal principle.

Has the Minister observed the curious attachment of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and others to every totalitarian regime, feudal monarchy or other dictatorship in the middle east as opposed to the only democracy there? Will the Minister reaffirm that the Government's policy on the middle east is to create a bridge, where they can, between the United Kingdom and the democracy of Israel, whoever is elected to office in that country?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is doing an injustice to my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who takes a close and keen interest in that part of the world. He, like the Government takes the view that Israel has a right to exist within secure boundaries. It surely must take more than one party to reach an agreement and it is surely in Britain's interests as well as those of Israel and Arab countries to see stability in that part of the world. That also means a stable Jordan. The Government believe that it is very important that the parties concerned, including the new Israeli Government, take a determined lead in the coming months to try to get a basis on which to have a dialogue.

Is it realistic for the EEC to continue to give favoured treatment to Israel while Israel continues to build settlements on the West Bank in defiance of international opinion, and to occupy the Lebanon, and while it ignores completely the rights of Arabs and Palestinians under its domination?

I do not believe that it is true to suggest that we are giving Israel favoured treatment. Our posture and view about the basis for a settlement are clear. We have made our view clear about the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza. We do not believe in the acquisition of territory by force. That must be a cardinal aspect of any prospect of progress towards a peaceful settlement.

Is it not clear that, due to lack of progress, frustrations and danger are increasing in the middle east? Do the Government see a positive role for the Soviet Union in that process, and if so, what are they doing about it?

I must agree with the hon. Gentleman's first remark. There is serious danger of continuing drift. To the extent that that happens, there will be increasing despair. I must state clearly that it must be in the interests of the Israelis, the Palestinians and the Arabs to make progress on this longstanding problem in the coming months. With regard to the Soviet Union, I have made the view known before that if there is to be a comprehensive peace settlement in that part of the world, I believe that it is in everyone' s interests that the Soviet Union should play a constructive role.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Spanish Government concerning their communiqué linking Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands.

We have expressed our regret to the Spanish Government at the terms of the joint Spanish-Argentine communiqué which was issued on 13 June.

Have not the Government rather fuelled such a statement by the difficulties of the people in Gibraltar and the Falklands in gaining British citizenship, and because we have not implemented the main recommendations of the Shackleton report or created the necessary economic climate in Gibraltar after the removal of the dockyard? Will the Minister consider that we should be talking about peoples and not land masses? Before we fall into the same folly overHong Kong, will he consider the lessons to be learnt from the two cases that I have mentioned?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is, no, Sir. We have taken care of the citizenship requirements of both those territories. We have followed the recommendations of the Shackleton report, about which we are frequently criticised by the Opposition, in terms of constructing the airfield on the Falkland Islands. We have consistently given great support to Gibraltar, notably in the civilianisation of the dockyard.

Will my hon. Friend make it perfectly clear to the Spanish Government that there is no question of the linkage of Spain and Gibraltar or the accession of Spain to the Common Market until Spain implements the Lisbon agreement in full? Can he give a firm undertaking, as given by the Prime Minister and other Foreign Ministers, that this accession will not take place until the restrictions against the people of Gibraltar are completely lifted?

We accept that the Lisbon agreement is the basis of the way forward to resolving the differences between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend that, whilst we support Spanish accession to the Community, it would be inconceivable for Spain to join the Community while not allowing ordinary traffic to cross the frontier with Gibraltar.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on his review of diplomatic immunity granted to representatives at the Court of St. James.

My right hon. and learned Friend made a detailed statement on international terrorism and the Vienna convention to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on 18 July. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

When my hon. Friend reviews diplomatic immunity, will he take into account the fact that it is widely believed that substantial amounts of drugs are coming into the country through diplomatic bags? Anything that he can do to intervene helpfully will considerably aid the fight against this trade in death.

My hon. Friend will be aware that Her Majesty's Government are worried about any abuse of the diplomatic bag that may be taking place. That is being considered as part of the review that my right hon. and learned Friend has announced.

Has the Minister or any of his colleagues seen fit to make representations to the Government of Pakistan about this?

I am not aware of any specific representations to the Government of Pakistan.

Are not the ranks of many foreign missions swollen by numbers of people who are not diplomats but subversive agents? Will Her Majesty's Government seek to ensure that the level of representation here is about the same as in the corresponding overseas country?

We are naturally concerned if anyone in this country ostensibly as a diplomat is found to be carrying out functions inconsistent with his diplomatic status. However, it is not unreasonable that some missions should have larger numbers of staff in the United Kingdom than we have in their countries. London is a great international centre, and as such is often considered to be one of the most important areas of diplomatic representations in the world.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had about the United Kingdom signing the United Nations law of the sea convention; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom has had consultations with a wide range of countries on this subject. Our policy towards the convention remains that improvements to the mining regime are required. We shall be continuing efforts to secure these improvements at next month's meeting of the preparatory commission.

Is it not in our economic, strategic and political interests to sign the convention by 10 December 1984? Is the Minister not aware that the bulk of British industry would like us to sign? Why, therefore, does he alone continue to kow-tow to the White House?

The hon. Gentleman has simply not studied the matter if he thinks that Britain is alone in this respect. No fewer than 35 countries have yet to sign the convention, including half the members of the European Community. We are seeking improvements to the convention. Even if we have not signed it by December, the treaty, once ratified, will be open to accession by any country. If in the future we are able to achieve substantial changes to the present convention, that will be the time to consider whether we shall be a party to it.

Is my hon. Friend aware that only last week the Department of State in Washington stated that it would not be signing the convention and, furthermore, that it would put up various options to the private sector? Is he aware of this latest United States move?

That statement is in accordance with what the united States has previously said. Many countries who have signed the convention will not necessarily be ratifying it. More than 100 countries have signed it, but so far only 12 have ratified. It is not the United Kingdom's normal practice to sign a convention unless we feel able to ratify it in due course.

Does the Minister accept that the major obstacle for the United Kingdom is the deep ocean mining provisions? Which firms in the United Kingdom are taking advantage of existing legislation, or are they waiting until the United Kingdom clears this matter up by acceding to the provisions of the treaty?

I am not aware of any United Kingdom entity with an interest in deep seabed mining which would wish to take advantage of the law of the sea convention's final act enabling registration as a pioneer investor. While the hon. Gentleman is correct in saying that the controversial part of the convention is the deep seabed mining regime, the provisions for compulsory transfer of technology and the expense involved are deeply disliked by British industry, for reasons which the Government fully share.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the Commonwealth support for this convention and the advantages that it will bring to the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environment in terms of pollution control and the Ministry of Defence? Does he agree that in this area we do not have to follow the United States slavishly, bearing in mind the number of extremely influential Americans who are wholly opposed to President Reagan's attitude to the convention?

As I have already mentioned, no less than half the European Community, and about 35 countries in total, have not yet thought fit to sign the convention. My hon. Friend is correct in saying that, apart from deep seabed mining, many parts of the convention are perfectly acceptable to the United Kingdom as well as to other countries. The difficulty which this and many other Governments face is that one must either accept the convention as a whole or reject it. It is not possible to accept only those parts that might be thought suitable.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the convention is deficient in at least one aspect, in that no mention is made of the men and women who sail on the seas, nor is there any mention of their conditions or the dangers involved in their work? Before he signs the convention—and I urge him to do so—will he make representations on their behalf?

If the hon. Gentleman believes that the existing provisions of the convention are inadequate, I hope that he will give full support to the Government's attempts to amend them.

Is the Minister aware that there are precedents when we have signed conventions and not gone on eventually to ratify. The Minister is well aware that this is a package, a balance of rights and a crucial element in the North-South dialogue. Does he place any weight on the fact that the CBI, BP, Shell and the General Council of British Shipping are very much in favour of our signing the convention? If we do not do so by 10 December, we shall lose our full voting rights in the preparatory commission. Is this not another example of us showing our indifference to the Third world, ditching United Kingdom maritime interests and following the narrow interests of United States mining concerns?

The hon. Gentleman said that there are precedents when we have signed a treaty and not subsequently ratified it. That may be the case where there have been subsequent developments that have made it inappropriate to ratify a treaty or convention, but I am not aware of any precedent when Her Majesty's Government have signed a treaty or convention in the knowledge that they would be unable to ratify it because of its terms. That would be an unattractive principle in international law and not one which the hon. Gentleman would wish to commend to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the progress of the talks over the future of Hong Kong.

The talks on the future of Hong Kong are progressing satisfactorily. The 19th round of formal talks was completed earlier today in Peking. They were once again described as "useful and constructive" by both sides. The working group continues to meet full-time between the formal rounds in order to consider documents submitted by the two sides. It will take a short recess between 31 July and the week beginning 13 August. My right hon. and learned Friend left on a further visit to Hong Kong and Peking earlier today.

In future meetings with the Chinese authorities, will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that the views and statements by members of UMELCO do not represent the views of the people of Hong Kong, and that it speaks only for the ruling and wealthy classes? Should not more notice be taken of the ordinary grass roots organisations, because they represent the real people of Hong Kong?

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely unfair to the members of UMELCO, who, under both Conservative and Labour Governments, have been appointed to undertake certain responsibilities. They fulfill those functions with a high sense of duty and responsibility, and a tribute should be paid to them for that. Throughout the past several months the Government have been making, as the hon. Gentleman knows, a sustained effort to ensure that we are aware of the views of the vast cross-section of people in Hong Kong. Each time that I have gone out there I have taken the opportunity to meet a different part of that cross-section. Reports come back to us frequently from all parts of the Hong Kong community.

Is my hon. Friend aware that any agreement with China about Hong Kong w ill be unacceptable to the House unless it assures continuous British sovereignty and British rights of administration over Hong Kong until 1997?

My right hon. Friend is right to refer to the fact that at the end of the day it is the British Parliament that has to take the decision whether the proposals that we hope to be able to recommend are acceptable. I can reaffirm clearly that it is the British Government' s firm intention to retain responsibility for Hong Kong until 1997.

Does the Minister agree that it would not be in the interests of China to seek an agreement so weak that it would destroy confidence in Hong Kong? Will he deny reports that no substantive progress has been made towards a detailed agreement?

On the latter point, the very fact that there is a working group that has been meeting day-by-day in Peking gives some measure of the fact that we are giving a lot of attention to the prospect of a detailed agreement. Progress is being made, but there is still a way to go. It is right, in order to reassure the people of Hong Kong about their future and the continuity of their way of life, that there should be as much detail as possible in any agreement that we can reach with the Chinese. That will provide the best assurance for them for after 1997.

Will my hon. Friend comment on reports in the papers of the proposal by the People's Republic of China that some Anglo-Chinese commission might be set up soon, presumably to supervise the gradual handover of power? Does he not agree that although this might be suitable 12 years hence, just before 1997, it is utterly inappropriate now and should be not just resisted but turned down?

I have seen those alleged proposals from the Chinese. However, it will not come as any surprise to my hon. Friend to know that when I visited Hong Kong recently I found that the cross-section of the public with whom I was in touch had their own views to express on this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I took them very carefully into account. This whole issue must be seen against the background of the British Government's very firm intention — which I cannot restate too often—to maintain responsibility until 1997.

Is the Minister aware that the recent Green Paper on the government of Hong Kong is seen by many democrats in Hong Kong and elsewhere as at best a sop and at worst an insult to the intelligence of the vast majority of the people of Hong Kong? Why are the British Government so unwilling to introduce an entirely directly elected legislative council fully to represent the views of the people of Hong Kong and why do they continue a system of colonial patronage that is seen throughout the whole world as one of the last bastions of British imperialism?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has fairly reflected the views of the people of Hong Kong. As a result of the Green Paper which the hon. Gentleman has in his hand they have now been given two months in which to give their views about the proposals. The hon. Gentleman will note that the Green Paper—green for consultation—takes the stages forward very gradually. The Government are committed to the evolution of representative government. There is an element of direct election at local government level, involving urban, district and regional councils, but we are looking towards two stages in the 1980s—not in the 1990s—which allow for a process of indirect election, and which we feel will fit the situation in Hong Kong in the next few years.

Regardless of those who have a vested interest in trying to sow discord between Britain and China over Hong Kong, does my hon. Friend agree that, despite the difficulties, it would help if as much detail as possible could be written into the agreement between the two Governments? Does he further agree that, although the fears in Hong Kong are understandable, if some form of joint liaison commission were set up at a reasonably early date between the British and Chinese Governments it might ensure some sort of eventual smooth transition?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As I have said, we strongly feel that the best assurance for the people of Hong Kong, who are naturally anxious and uncertain about their future, is that there should be as much detail as possible in that agreement so that they can see that the way of life which they are used to and which has created Hong Kong's prosperity and stability can continue. That is why we hold the very strong view that it is essential to go on working, week after week, to try to persuade the Chinese that it is in their interests to see that, let alone the interests of the people of Hong Kong.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the confidence of the people of Hong Kong in the reliability of any agreement that is reached is of paramount importance both to our Parliament and to the Government of Peking. However, does the Minister agree that there may be some advantage in some sort of machinery through which Peking is made more directly aware of the state of feeling in Hong Kong? A commission composed of British and Chinese representatives might perform a useful role, provided that it is not given any effective authority before the handover takes place.

I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's view, and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will also note it. I do not think that anything that the right hon. Gentleman has said contradicts our view that if there is to be any form of contact with the Chinese Government about the future with a view to contributing to a smooth transition in 1997, nothing must be done to undermine in any way the authority of the British Government, who firmly intend to remain in charge and to maintain responsibility until 1997.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the United Kingdom's relations with Argentina.

As my right hon. and learned Friend told the House on 20 July, we regret that the Argentine Government brought the talks in Berne last week to a premature end. We shall obviously need to assess the implications of the Argentine attitude, which caused the breakdown. We continue to take the view that it is in the interests of all concerned to seek the restoration of more normal relations between Britain and Argentina and will stand firmly by our commitments to the Falkland Islanders.

As the strained relations between ourselves and Argentina are leading not only to the imposition of a severe financial burden on this country but are in danger of distorting our whole defence strategy, may we have an assurance that the Government will make every possible effort to bring about a resumption of discussions with Argentina, notwithstanding the fact that the Argentines were responsible for the breakdown of last week's talks?

I am glad that my hon. Friend recognises where the fault lay for the breakdown of the talks. We shall certainly seek the normalisation of relations with Argentina, as I said in my main reply, but we must also retain our commitment to the Falkland Islanders and proceed with the economic development of the Falklands.

Should we not be deeply concerned about the authoritative reports coming out of Washington, from Dr. Robert Scheinn and others, that a formidable rearmament programme is going in Argentina? What are we to make of the battalion amphibious exercises at night? What we are to make of the Syhawks that are being armed with more Exocets? [Interruption.] Formidable rearmament is going on. What is the Government's assessment of that? As they will not give an assessment in answer to written questions, will the Minister give an undertaking to make a statement on the matter?

Our views on the continued sale of arms to the Argentine Government are well known. We keep the matter well under survey and we are satisfied that all our allies who are potential arms suppliers are well appreciative of our concerns—concerns which the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also expresses.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on East-West relations.

We and our allies and partners will continue to look for opportunities to make progress on arms control and on a whole range of other international issues with the Soviet Union and countries of eastern Europe. We continue to believe that openness and willingness to do business based on firmness and care for our security is the right approach.

While supporting the right to free trade unionism in this country as well as in Poland, may I ask the Minister whether he accepts that the recent amnesty in that country represents a step forward in reconciliation, nationally and internationally? Does it remove impediments to normal diplomatic and trading relations? Will Her Majesty's Government respond positivly to those actions and encourage the United States to do likewise?

When martial law was first introduced in Poland, Western countries said that one condition which would make progress with our relations possible would be the release of political prisoners. If the amnesty which has been announced leads to the release of all political prisoners, that will undoubtedly help the normalisation of relations between the West and Poland. European Community heads of foreign ministries yesterday issued a statement welcoming the amnesty, and we look forward to all the Polish prisoners being released.

As the Helsinki agreement between East and West linked human rights with peace, should we not go on reminding those countries behind the iron curtain with which we have diplomatic relations that the way in which they are treating human rights—by saying that the matter is not only none of our business but is none of their own people's business — is an impediment to peace far greater than the question of armaments on either side?

My hon. Friend is correct. Perhaps one of the most objectionable practices has been the incarceration in the Soviet Union of those who were seeking to monitor the observance by the Soviet authorities of the undertakings into which they had entered.

rose——

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British consular representative at the Swedish embassy in Tehran is involved in trade promotion.

Yes. Two of the 16 United Kingdom based staff of the British interests section in Tehran are directly concernd with commercial work. This number is to be increased to four later this year.

The Minister will remember that he said in answer to an earlier question that the Government would do all that they could to end the Gulf war. Does he agree that our trade with Iran is now greater than it was in the days of the Shah—this trade is clearly being actively promoted by the Government—and that this strengthens the Khomeini regime and enables it more actively to pursue the war and its internal repression?

It is true that our trade with Iran is quite strong, as it is with many other countries with the policies of whose Governments we do not necessarily agree. We have ordinary commercial trade with Iran, as we have incidentally, with Iraq, but it is not right to suggest that that in itself is contributing to the war. Nothing could be further from the truth. All our objectives and aims as a Government are concentrated on trying to work with other parties to bring peaceful mediation between the two parties. That is our priority. That is why we remain neutral and that is why we concentrate on not selling lethal equipment.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that you will recall that I rose——

Order. I do not want to pre-empt the right hon. Gentleman, but he was not in the Chamber when we had a good run on Question No. 1, which was concerned with human rights, in which the Opposition Front Bench intervened. I felt it right, in fairness to Back Benchers, to move on to the next question, the House having had a good run on Question No. 1.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Question No. 8 is concerned with East-West relations, the most important single issue facing Britain and the world, and not with human rights. You will be aware that I rose to intervene on that issue, having intervened only once in previous questions. Is it not contrary to precedent that you decided not to recognise my rising?

Order. We have done rather badly with questions today. We have taken only nine questions. The Opposition Front Bench has intervened no fewer than four times, which takes up rather more time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that I am concerned to ensure that Back Benchers have a fair share share of Question Time. We discussed human rights at some length on Question No. 1.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I shall take the right hon. Gentleman's point of order later.

When will you take my point of order, Mr. Speaker.?

Immediately after Question Time. It will take time out of Question Time if I deal with points of order now.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the need for the European Economic Community to phase out export subsidies on food; and if he will make a statement.

We are well aware of the strength of feeling in the United Kingdom and among some of our trading partners about the level of export refunds made available by the Community. The United Kingdom has consistently argued that European Community agricultural prices should be brought more into line with those on the world market, which would reduce the need to dispose of surpluses by subsidised export.

When is this likely to occur in the grain market?

My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that this year, for the first time, the decision taken by the Agriculture Ministers on prices involved the freezing of certain prices and the reduction of others. We hope to see the principle extended to areas that have not yet had the benefit of this much more sensible approach.

What is the Minister's response to the increase in farm spending that was announced by the Commission yesterday? Does it not go against the Government's policy? What do the Government think about the proposal to dump more cheap butter on world markets and the possibility of disputes with New Zealand and the United State that that will cause? Will the Minister confirm the reports that only a proportion of the cash due to farmers will be paid in the current year?

In so far as the Commission's proposals, if implemented, would contradict the present 1 per cent. ceiling on Community expenditure, the United Kingdom is and will remain entirely opposed to them. The Commission has accepted that its proposals would contravene the position of the Council of Ministers on the 1 per cent. ceiling. We hope that the Commission will approach the matter in a responsible manner. Any expenditure incurred which goes beyond the ceiling that has been imposed should be unacceptable to the United Kingdom and to all other member states.

While fully accepting my hon. Friend's reply, may I congratulate him on the remarkable success that he and his colleagues seem to have achieved in tapping the job promotion element of the social fund? Does this not more than compensate for any loss that we may have suffered on the subsidising of exports?

For a number of years the United Kingdom has been a main beneficiary of the social fund, and much of the credit for that must go to those in the various Departments who have identified suitable schemes that have been fully in accordance with the criteria. The United Kingdom has been, and I hope will continue to be, a major beneficiary in this area.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Council of Ministers to implement the decisions on greater cooperation and harmonisation in the Community following the Fontainebleau summit of 25 and 26 June.

The Irish Presidency is consulting other member states about the formation of an ad hoc committee, as proposed at the Fontainebleau European Council, to look at ways of improving European co-operation. The United Kingdom will be participating in this work.

Notwithstanding the sudden absence of the shadow Foreign Secretary from the Opposition Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"]—does my hon. Friend agree that, at least on the Conservative Benches, there is now a strong spirit of European co-operation? [Interruption.] Does he also agree, remembering that the Community was established in 1957, that to proceed with the rapid implementation of the European passport—as an option which countries may adopt in addition to their national passports—would not be too bold or rash a step?

My hon. Friend will have been encouraged by the unanimous response from the Government Benches to his initial comment. I remind him that there is no proposal for a European passport. The British passport will be retained, as will the passports of all the other member states. There are proposals for a common format of the kind described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

When will the Conservative party drop its hypocrisy about Europe? We hear talk of co-operation and friendliness, but the Foreign Secretary could not negotiate his way out of a paper bag and the Prime Minister thrives on confrontation in all her actions. When will we hear the end of the continual claptrap which the Foreign Secretary brings back, and when will he turn his mind instead to sorting out the basic problems of the European Community?

We need no lectures from the Labour party on co-operation and friendliness. Those qualities are not the characteristics of the Labour party that have most impressed themselves upon the general public.

Does not the great success of the Departments in securing excellent contributions from the social and regional funds illustrate the importance of making the best of our membership of the EEC instead of whingeing ceaselessly about the colour of passports?

The Government have always made it clear that we hope to see the United Kingdom's net contribution to the Community reduced, at least in part by additional expenditure within the United Kingdom. In so far as the items to which my hon. Friend refers help to meet this objective, they are to be increasingly welcomed.

Will the Minister confirm that the paper presented by the Prime Minister at Fontainebleau represents the Government's official policy on the matters referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes)?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in seeking Common Market reforms since the conclusion of an outline agreement at the Fontainebleau summit; and if he will make a statement.

At the Economic and Finance Council on 9 July Finance Ministers set in hand the work to implement the agreed text on budgetary discipline. The Foreign Affairs Council on 23 and 24 July examined the Commission's draft text of a new own resources decision embodying the budgetary corrective mechanism. Work on both these issues will continue in parallel.

A third of every penny spent by the Commmon Market is spent on destroying or dumping surplus foodstuffs. Is my hon. Friend not concerned about the decision of the Commission yesterday to agree to even more spending on the dumping of cheap butter and other foods in Russia and elsewhere when the Commission has no authority from the Council of Ministers for such spending? What powers do our Government or any other national Government have to prevent the Commission spending illegally?

I share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the Commission's proposals. In regard to powers to prevent action such as it contemplates, in so far as its proposals go to the Council of Ministers, the United Kingdom is able to take action in the normal way. Some of its proposals might be dealt with by the Management Committee, in which decisions can be overturned only by a two thirds vote against. I assure my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom will oppose the proposals, but I cannot anticipate whether the two thirds requirement with regard to decisions by the Management Committee will be achieved.

If huge surpluses continue to be amassed, can we not at least ensure that food that is stored in Britain is distributed to people in this country who need it, such as my constituents, who have so little income that food stores in Kirkby are closing down, or is given to the poor of the Third world who are dying of malnutrition and starvation?

There are already schemes for the sale of much cheaper butter to hospitals and orphanages in Britain. The Community also has a major food aid programme, which now amounts to about £280 million.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the Government's firm stand in the latest round of financial negotiations in the EEC. Will he confirm that it is, therefore, all the more important that the financial mechanism for the future control of Community expenditure is made even tighter and more viable, to ensure that we do not have the same runaway expenditure in future?

That is our objective. It is worth noting that the Commission's original estimate for expenditure this year of 2·6 billion ecu has already been reduced by one half as the Presidency's request is for only 1·35 billion ecu. We still believe that that is unacceptable and that the Commission should be trying to make further reductions to ensure that the Community's spending stays within its legal ceiling.

Will the Minister confirm that the cost to Britain of the common agricultural policy is about £6 billion to £7 billion a year above what it would be if we could operate our own agricultural policy? Does that not add up to about £78 a week for the average family's food costs? Is it not time that this nonsense stopped?

I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's figures. He will be aware that if Britain returned to a deficiency payments system that would impose a massive economic burden on British taxpayers.

Has something gone seriously wrong with the Foreign Office? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Were we not going to stop all this nonsense about cheap food exports to Russia by being tough about Community own resources? Why are we now proposing an increase in those resources when the Commission's proposals increase cheap food exports to Russia at the expense of the British taxpayer?

The Commission is free to propose what it wishes. The Government believe that the Council of Ministers must take firm action to ensure that any Commission proposals that are contrary to the legal limits of Community spending are not accepted. The Government intend to take seriously their responsibility in that regard and hope that other Community Governments will do the same.

Is not the reality that the Commission has just decided to ignore the Council of Ministers? Does not its decision to go ahead with unauthorised expenditure, for which the money does not exist, demolish all the promises that we have heard about greater financial discipline? Has the Minister noted that a Commission official is quoted as saying that the decision was taken as a trial of strength? If the Commission believes that being financially irresponsible is a means of showing strength, why on earth should the House agree to vote even more money for the Commission to be even more irresponsible?

If the Community Governments respond as the Government intend to respond to this proposal, it will not take effect. The Council of Ministers and member Governments have the power to prevent any of the Commission's proposals which they believe are undesirable and unacceptable.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have received calling for increased federalism in the European Economic Community.

None from European Community member states. But the then President of the European Parliament formally handed my right hon. and learned Friend a copy of the European Parliament's draft treaty on European union on 11 July.

As my hon. Friend has received no representations from within Britain to go down the road to European federalism, and as there was no mandate last year from our general election for increased measures of European federalism, will it be the Government's policy not to head further down the road to federalism in Europe during the lifetime of this Parliament?

The Government have always made it clear that we do not support moves towards European federalism. We believe that the Community has a substantial number of practical problems to address itself to and that it could do a great service to all the people of the Community if it concentrated on those matters for the foreseeable future.

Will the resolution of the European Assembly, to which the Minister has just referred, be considered by the new ad hoc committee of personal representatives? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the establishment of that ad hoc committee was in paragraph 6 of the unpublished presidential communiqué? Was that paragraph expressly assented to by the Prime Minister at Fontainebleau?

The agenda of the committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred has not been finalised. The Government are perfectly happy to participate in that committee and to play a constructive part in its deliberations.

My hon. Friend has made several references to Britain's success in obtaining money from the European social fund. Is there not a risk, in the Government's position on the cost overruns in the 1984 budget, that payments from the social fund may be cut in future?

No, there is not such a risk. The sort of expenditure that would be incurred if the overruns were to be financed would not help to reduce the imbalance in the present expenditure of the Community in the way that the United Kingdom believes appropriate, as my hon. Friend knows. The overspend would be caught purely by agricultural expenditure, which already takes far too high a proportion of Community spending.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will press for the retention of the right to appoint two commissioners to the EEC.

In the interest of a greater effectiveness we believe that, on Portuguese and Spanish accession, the number of commissioners should be limited to 12, that is one per member state. If we cannot secure agreement for this proposal, we shall retain the right to nominate two commissioners.

The Minister's reply is just not good enough. Does he not agree that Britain really needs two commissioners? Will he confirm that if we have two commissioners he will adhere to the practice of appointing one from the Government and one from the Opposition? When will he announce the appointment or reappointment of our commissioners?

The right to nominate commissioners is the prerogative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. That has been true under successive Governments. The Government believe that if Spain were to achieve two commissioners and Portugal one, a total of 17 commissioners would be substantially in excess of what the Community requires and would create difficulties in attracting people of a suitable calibre to the work. I have emphasised that our willingness to reduce the number of commissioners is dependent upon other member states making a similar response.

Is that not another example of the proposition that an enlarged Community will be a weaker and less cohesive Community?

No, it is not. The number of commissioners is a relatively marginal matter compared with the major benefits that will accrue to the European Community as a whole when it represents the greater part of western Europe.

In view of the satisfaction that the Minister took earlier from how well Britain is doing from the social fund, would it not be sensible for the Government to reappoint the commissioner for the social fund, who happens to be the Labour nominee?

We always note with interest the Opposition's recommendations in such matters. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the precedent that the Prime Minister of the day, whether Conservative or Labour, reserves the right to make his or her own decision in the knowledge of the views of the other parties concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about progress made towards achieving the objectives set out in the solemn declaration on European union made by the Heads of Government at the Stuttgart summit.

The recent European Council discussed the future development of Europe and agreed that two ad hoc committees would be set up, which will look at ways of improving European co-operation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that Britain should play a full and constructive part in implementing the solemn declaration and that it will be disastrous if we stand on the sidelines while others act?

The Government intend to play a full and constructive part in the deliberations on these matters. I assure my hon. Friend that that will continue to be our priority.

Will the Government review their decision to ask the House to approve an increase in European own resources? As it is patently obvious to everyone that the Community has no wish to live within its current ceiling, what faith can we have in the new ceiling?

As my hon. Friend well knows, the Government's recommendation for an increase in own resources will take place only if we are satisfied that the agreement still to be reached on proposals for budgetary discipline meets our requirements and what we believe to be necessary in the interests of the Community.

Will my hon. Friend describe the form of budgetary discipline currently under discussion?

We are concerned that the general statement on the need to control expenditure should be implemented by means of budgetary procedures that will ensure that in future years Community expenditure is kept within the sums determined by the Budget Councils.

What proposals are the Government putting forward for further liberalisation of the internal market?

The Government attach substantial importance to the creation of a genuine common market. We believe that there is scope for progress not only in the simplification of frontier controls, but in liberalisation of services throughout the Community.

The Minister mentioned two ad hoc committees. Will he now answer my earlier question? Did the Prime Minister approve paragraph 6 of the document which, among other things, established those two committees?

So far as I know, that paragraph did not specifically establish committees, but I have made it clear that we welcome the appointment of the committees and intend to play a full and constructive part in their deliberations.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the solemn declaration raises important constitutional issues for the United Kingdom? Before the committees do too much and before any further progress is made on this, may we have a full debate on the matter in this House?

The solemn declaration to which my hon. Friend refers is what is often known as the Genscher-Colombo proposal, which has no constitutional implications for the United Kingdom. The committees have been established to look at practical ways to improve the workings of Community institutions and co-operation between member states.