asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the implementation of the Fontainebleau agreement; and if he will make a statement.

Following the agreement on control of Community spending reached at Fontainebleau last year, agricultural prices were reduced by 3·5 per cent. in real terms. The new own resources decision, which provides for abatement of the United Kingdom's budget contribution, has come into force. Our 1984 VAT abatement of £605 million has been paid and the abatements being made to our monthly VAT contributions in respect of 1985 will be worth at least £830 million. These figures demonstrate the value of the Fontainebleau agreement to Britain. As I have frequently made clear, reform, especially of the CAP, must be pursued year by year, which is exactly what we are doing.

Is it true that the EEC budget crisis is back with a vengeance, that it never went away and that it will be impossible to fund regional and social programmes already in the pipeline, which especially benefit the United Kingdom, without a further increase over and above the 1·4 per cent. increased VAT ceiling in the current year?

The hon. Lady should not jump to that latter conclusion. The EEC, as with almost all other organisations, must control its spending and revenue. The battle to secure budget discipline is a battle without end which will be sustained.

Is it not clear that there will be mounting difficulties in the EEC and that it is, therefore, of the utmost importance to take effective decisions to safeguard the Community and the interests of Britain? Is not the Single European Act, modest though it is, an essential first step in that direction, and should it not be fully supported?

My hon. Friend has put his finger precisely on the merits of the Single European Act from his point of view. The House will have the opportunity to debate it more fully in due course.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that whatever reforms there have been in the CAP, the problems of the CAP have accelerated to a greater extent than have the reforms? Will he also confirm that he, like many of us, predicted last year that there would be a massive increase in cereal surpluses and also that there was a strong possibility that the dollar might decline and, therefore, that there is no justification whatever for the Community seeking more money for that purpose?

Plainly it is desirable that the Community should seek to live within the money that has been allotted to it under the existing own resources provision. The change in the dollar-ecu rate is bound to create problems, as was forecast, but that fact must be put in the wider context. The difficulties facing agriculture are not confined to the European Community. Throughout the world agriculture is facing a near crisis of overproduction, caused to a large extent by improvements in technology. The Community is not alone in having surpluses. The world cereal stock is estimated to exceed 190 million tonnes, of which almost half comes from the United States.

Is the Secretary of State aware that when the Fontainebleau agreement was brought back to the House its foundation was budget discipline? The Foreign Secretary now tells us that budget discipline is a battle without end. As the battle is being lost everywhere that it is being fought, and as the financial resources of the Community will run out probably when the Secretary of State takes over the chairmanship of the Council of Ministers, how long will the Fontainebleau basic agreement last? As our rebate is tied directly to the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling of the EEC, for how long will the rebate continue in existence while CAP surpluses continue to wreak havoc on the Community's budget?

The hon. Gentleman has made three points. First, it is important to control expenditure and to sustain budget discipline. It is always heartwarming to have support for that proposition from the Opposition.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any soldiers or officers of the Chilean Government are presently being trained in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

We do provide some training for Chilean armed forces personnel in the United Kingdom, but do not allocate places to Chileans on courses covering internal security techniques.

Is not this provision of training utterly disgraceful? The Minister's reply is rather like that of the second housemaid who said that her baby was only a little one. The reality is that a principle is involved. That brute beast Pinochet is in charge of Chile and the people of Chile are steadily going for his throat to get rid of him. Are we not to change a policy that has applauded his master's voice in Washington with Marcos, Duvalier, Samosa and company? Why do we not denounce Pinochet democratically in our own right, remove anything to do with him from Britain and support the people of Chile in their drive towards democracy?

It is sad that the hon. Gentleman has such a partial view of affairs. We have continued to make clear our concern about the Chilean Government's human rights record. We supported both the resolution of 14 March of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which criticised Chile's record, and the European Community's presidency statement of 18 March, which expressed concern about restrictions on freedom in Chile.

If we are to have any sort of objective appraisal of these matters, should the House not recall that at the time of the Falklands conflict we were by no means unhappy to receive indirect assistance from the Chileans? I wonder whether my hon. Friend could put in the Library a list of the other countries, about which no complaint seems to be made, which send members of their armed forces to be trained in Britain, including Libya?

I have taken careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said. I must tell him that details of bilateral military training involving all countries are kept confidential.

Does the Minister realise how deplorable it is to have such close collaboration with a bloodstained dictatorship, such as the Chilean junta? Is it not the height of hypocrisy for Tory Members to denounce repression in eastern Europe while being only too pleased to have this form of collaboration with the regime in Chile?

We have always made it clear that we condemn abuses of human rights wherever they may occur.

How do the Government know whether or not their help will be used to develop internal techniques? What do the Chilean forces have to do other than concentrate on internal affairs? That is what they are about.

As I have already made clear to the House, we have made it our policy not to allocate places for military training within the United Kingdom on courses which cover internal security techniques.

Does my hon. Friend agree that only countries with which we enjoy friendly relations should receive training facilities in Britain? Some of the countries which have asked for military training here for their forces are anti-European or anti-United Kingdom.

We take a number of factors into consideration when military training is requested by Third-world countries. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett), the details of those countries which send officers to this country for training are confidential.

Do the Government not recognise from experience in Haiti and the Philippines that external pressure is important in dealing with dictators? Do the Government not also recognise that by supporting the dictator Pinochet and training his troops they are undermining the democratic forces of the Right as well as of the Left in Chile? In view of the strong views expressed in the House today, will the Government rethink this policy immediately?

Our policy is absolutely clear. We have made clear our concern about the position on human rights in Chile by our support for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' announcement and for the EC presidency. There can be no doubt about our views on human rights in Chile.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, which mean that we are supporting a brutal dictatorship, I reserve the right to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances he sought during recent discussions with the Syrian Foreign Minister that those Syrian Jews seeking to emigrate would now be allowed to do so; and if he will make a statement.

The local Jewish community has made it clear in the past that it does not wish its conditions to form part of Western ministerial exchanges with the Syrian Government. We have nevertheless left the Syrian Foreign Minister in no doubt of the strong feelings in this country on the question of human rights in Syria.

Can the Minister of State help, perhaps by getting a parliamentary delegation to go and see the conditions in which about 4,500 Jews are living in Syria? Given the nature of the middle east, the conditions cannot be good, but the more information we have the better, because we must do something to get these people out of Syria.

I listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am not certain that a parliamentary delegation would necessarily be the right avenue. However, he should discuss it, if he has not already done so, with Amnesty International. I understand the concern that he expresses. When I was in Damascus in December I raised the issue of a local Jewish community informally with a Jewish business man there. I was told that the only condition with which they are having real difficulty at the moment is the inability to travel outside Syria. Other than that, in many ways their conditions are much the same as those of other Syrian citizens.

In the course of his talks, did my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary also assure the Syrian Foreign Minister that Her Majesty's Government fully appreciated Syrian feeling about the future of the 100,000 Syrian civilians thrown out of Golan by the Israelis in 1967—

Order. The question concerns Syrian Jews.

—and that feelings about humanitarian problems were not restricted to one section only?

Neither my right hon. and learned Friend nor I raised the question of the Syrians who have been dispossessed as a result of the Israeli occupation of the Golan Heights. However, I accept what my hon. Friend has said. Syria is a party to the conflict between the Arabs and Israel. Syrian territory, the Golan, is occupied by Israel. We very much wish to see Syria play a constructive and helpful part in any peace settlement.

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that this question concerns Syrian Jews.

May I confirm what the hon. Gentleman has just said? On a previous visit to Syria I was told by a spokesman for the Jewish community that their lot was the much easier the less intervention and propaganda were made about their position.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. It is always pleasant to have one's remarks fully corroborated, from whatever source in the House.

What assurance has my hon. Friend had from the Israeli authorities that Syrian Jews emigrating to Israel will not end up dispossessing and disfranchising Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza?

The number of Syrian Jews emigrating to Israel at present is limited. We have an idea that a small number have had permission to leave. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the numbers involved could only be very small.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that you are aware—

Order.

rose—

Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what preparations he is making for a new initiative to resolve the Iran-Iraq war in the context of the forthcoming British presidency of the European Economic Community.

The Iran-Iraq conflict is a prominent item on the agenda of European Community Foreign Ministers. With the other member states, we shall continue to press for the early implementation of Security Council resolution 582, and to support the mediation efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General.

I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but will he go a little further than that? When he assumes the presidency of the Economic Community, will he take a very early opportunity to impress upon his counterparts the necessity to desist from supplying all weapons of war to that area, and also to make some sort of representation to the Soviet Union to do the same?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been and will continue to be active in the Security Council itself and in the European Community in support of pressing for the acceptance of Security Council resolution 582. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our policy is not to sell defence-related equipment that could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. That shows our own judgment on the merits of that policy.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the current collapse in oil prices could have a radical effect on the outcome and progress of the Iran-Iraq war? Is that not just one of the foreign policy consequences in the Gulf, following the collapse in oil prices? Is not now the time to pursue talks, for instance with the Saudis and other interested parties in the area, on the lines that I think my right hon. and learned Friend himself suggested in Riyadh a few months ago?

It is possible that the change in the state of the oil market will change conditions in a fashion that will create another possible opening for activity of the sort that my right hon. Friend has in mind. I shall certainly bear his suggestion in mind. As he will recall, my hon. Friend the Minister of State recently visited the Gulf to discuss the issue with a number of Gulf states, as I had done previously with Saudi Arabia. We shall continue to press the case in that way.

Given the complaint only last week by the Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister that the continued provision of aquatic craft and bridge-building kits, for instance, in the Iraq-Iran conflict is prolonging the war, how does the right hon. and learned Gentleman distinguish between what he referred to as lethal and non-lethal weapons on a previous occasion?

We distinguish in that way by making sure that every application for the export of defence-related equipment is rigorously scrutinised to ensure that all items are excluded that could contribute in the way that I have described to prolonging or exacerbating the conflict.

Is it not clear beyond any doubt that gas and chemical weapons have been used in this terrible war? Who is supplying them? What is Britain, as part of the United Nations, doing to try to stop it?

There is no doubt, from a presidential statement at the United Nations Security Council on 20 March, that there is firm evidence that Iraq has used chemical weapons. We condemn the use of chemical weapons, wherever and whenever it occurs. We have taken action jointly with our Community partners—now more than 12 months ago—to ensure that we do not export materials that could be used for that purpose. However, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of doing everything that we possibly can to stop the use of these appalling weapons in this or any other conflict.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held in the European Community Foreign Affairs Council concerning the forthcoming world economic summit.

The Tokyo economic summit has not been on the agenda of this year's Foreign Affairs Council meetings. But world economic issues are regularly discussed at international meetings such as those of the FAC. They include developments in the world economy such as oil prices and debt problems and also trade issues, which are likely to be discussed at the Tokyo summit.

Does the Minister agree that one of the main items on the agenda should be international debt? Does she further agree that falling oil prices for oil-exporting countries, just as falling commodity prices for African countries, have intensified their debt problem in a way that is not offset by the increase in world growth? Will the hon. Lady therefore give an undertaking that the Government will support moves, first, to put life into the ailing Baker plan for international debt, and, secondly, to give the type of increase in funding to the World Bank that matches resources to the scale of the problem?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern. There are no formal agendas for summit meetings, as they are matters for Heads of State and Governments. Questions of policy are addressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the notice of the Prime Minister. The fall in oil prices causes concern in all parts of the world. I cannot imagine that any discussion of this nature could possibly take place without the references that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is something to be said for telling the EEC that this country does not believe in a lot of pretentious posturing over foreign affairs? In particular, this country does not believe that there is any such thing as EEC foreign policy. It would be better if the EEC concentrated on getting its own finances in order. Does my hon. Friend accept that that might be achieved by telling the EEC that there will be no increase to 1·6 per cent. in our VAT contribution?

I hope my hon. Friend meant 1·4 per cent. It is important that there should not be posturing. We need to discuss issues with our colleagues in the EEC, and what we want in summit meetings is a free flow of discussion. That is the value of discussion. If there were the posturing that my hon. Friend spoke about, that would destroy the value of discussion.

During our presidency of the EEC in the next six months, will the Minister consider the possibility of inviting observers from the poor states of the world, from UNCTAD and from the United Nations to attend the Tokyo economic summit? At present it is a grouping of rich nations trying to settle the world's economic affairs in their own interests.

The hon. Gentleman should be under no illusions. The countries which are represented at summit meetings are well aware of the extreme needs of some of the poorer nations. What comes up on the agenda is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I shall make sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are brought to her attention.

If that subject is not on the Council's agenda, can my hon. Friend say whether the control of the threat of drugs is on the agenda? If so, the European Community could support my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary's efforts, which he made during his visits to India and to Pakistan to increase our influence in those countries, to minimise that threat.

I can well understand my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. There are regular discussions between the Interior and Home Ministers. I am sure that the control and the threat of drugs is a matter for all nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with Latin American Governments concerning their repayment of debts; and if he will make a statement.

The heavy debt burden borne by many Latin American Governments continues to cause us concern; this problem is frequently discussed in the course of our contacts with their Governments.

In view of the serious outflow of funding for poor Latin American countries and as that is being compounded by the loss of revenues from oil, would it not be a good thing if the Government took some intitiative, perhaps with their EEC partners, to organise a conference at which sane policies could be introduced regarding pledges on capping interest rates to allow those countries to get over this most difficult period?

There is no doubt that the question of reducing the pressures on Latin American countries is taken up not only by the IMF, but by the World Bank. I believe that the Baker initiative, which is being applied to middle income debtors and, indeed, to those who have greater problems—the poorer debtors of whom the hon. Gentleman spoke—will allow those donors to look at the needs of those countries.

Does the hon. Lady accept that the Baker initiative in itself is hardly sufficient to deal with the enormous world debt crisis, to which the American economy has made a contribution? Does she accept that the Third world is becoming fed up with financing the American deficit, and it is time we made representations in that direction?

There is no easy answer to anybody's debt problem. To get out of debt is a much harder job than it ever was to get into it. The duty of the developed countries is to promote non-inflationary growth in the world economy so that, by means of open markets, debtor countries can expand and begin to pull back the horrific debt problem. There is no easy answer for developed nations, and certainly none for the underdeveloped nations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy concerning the provision of aid by the United States of America to the Contras in Nicaragua; and if this policy has been communicated to the United States.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will call for an early meeting of the European Economic Community Council to consider issues raised by United States military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

We support the Contadora peace initiative and, together with our European partners. publicly welcomed the impetus given to Contadora in January by the Carabelleda declaration. We do not believe that the problems of Central America can be solved by armed force. The United States Government are well aware of our views. A further opportunity to discuss the matter with Community Foreign Ministers will arise on 21 April.

Has the Secretary of State communicated directly to the American Government the point that funding the Contras amounts to international terrorism and must be condemned by all civilised people?

We advocate a political solution through the Contadora process rather than a military solution. Nicaragua should be ready to negotiate seriously on the basis of the Contadora objectives and avoid such actions as the recent incursion into Honduras. I repeat that we do not believe that the region's problems can be resolved by armed force. We constantly urge restraint on all sides. We regularly discuss important questions, including the situation in Central America, with the United States and it is well aware of our views.

Will the Foreign Secretary dissociate the British Government completely from American support of the Contras, who are guilty of brutal terrorism and of attempting to overthrow a democratically elected Government by force? Does he realise that, unless the British Government take a more robust line in that respect, their condemnation of international terrorism is rendered less effective and appears partial and highly selective?

The hon. Gentleman must understand what I have just said. We discuss this matter regularly with our Community partners. We have made clear our view that the problems of the region cannot be solved by military means. A solution should come from the region itself. That is why we give our strong support, together with our colleagues in the European Council, to the Contadora process.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a real danger that American policy in Nicaragua may fall between two stools, neither overturning the Government there, nor reconciling Nicaragua to Western interests?

That is at heart a matter for the United States, and it is one of the questions that has led to differing views being taken by the two Houses of Congress on the proposal at present before them.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend consider it wise for any local authority to twin with Nicaragua, bearing in mind that Leicester city council has announced just that? Does he consider that that might be embarrassing to the—

Order. Funded by America? A bit wide, I think.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman must be much more sophisticated than that.

I thought that I had made it clear that I was referring to the role of the Contras and asking whether it was embarrassing for the Government to have any connection with the Contras on this.

Order. The question concerns aid from the United States Government to the Contras.

Should not the Foreign Secretary, as he has already said to the House, be building on the clear difference that there is between the two Houses of Congress in the United States and the President and giving support to those forces in America who realise that President Reagan's initiative, which appears to be his own, will not help the Contras of Central America? Should he not be assisting those in America who believe that the best way forward is to work with the members of the Contadora group and to meet the democratically elected Government of Nicaragua?

I have made it plain in answer to almost every one of the questions so far asked on this matter that the United States Government are well aware of our views on this question, upon which we have our own policy. We support a comprehensive and verifiable Contadora agreement, based on the well-known objectives of that process. We believe that the matter should be resolved by a political solution rather than by military means.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that this is an issue on which frank speaking by friends of the United States must serve the interests both of this country and of the United States? Is it not becoming obvious that the exaggerated and endless claims that Nicaragua represents a major threat to that great country are unhelpful to its European partners?

One must make a judgment on the claims of both sides. There is no doubt about the extent to which Nicaragua is observed by a number of the others taking part in the Contadora process as having some responsibility for failure to agree in that process. One of the problems identified at the meeting of the Contadora process earlier this week was Nicaragua's refusal to agree on arms levels. That is one of the matters still to be taken into account. We have made it very clear to everyone concerned that we believe that this problem cannot be solved by military means and that it is necessary to have restraint on all sides, and in that sense to seek a solution within the Contadora framework.

Will the Foreign Secretary accept that the only way to put an end to the bestial killings by the Contra forces in Nicaragua over the past seven years is for the British and European Governments to tell the United States very clearly that it must end all military aid, covert and overt, to Honduras and to the Contra forces themselves, as the only way to bring any peace to that region?

Even if I shared the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis, I am not at all sure that that would be the right way to advance his case. I shall restate the case that I have made many times this afternoon. We have discussed this matter many times with our Community partners and have reached a common view about the need for this problem to be solved not by military but by political means, and to be solved on the basis of restraint on all sides—I repeat, on all sides. The United States is in no doubt at all about our view.

First, may I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his safe return from what must have been an exhausting visit to the subcontinent, and on his acceptance during his visit of a gift of two sheep, which I trust are both still in good health.

I shall not follow the right hon. Gentleman on his discursive and anecdotal ramble through a series of observations—[HON MEMBERS: "Yes or no?"]—save only to say that the Contadora objectives require all sides to end the support for the subversion of other states. That applies to Nicaragua as well as any other state. It is on that basis—the basis of restraint on all sides—that we urge a conclusion of the problem, on the basis of the Contadora principles.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is planning further consultations with the front-line states about the future of Namibia.

We remain in touch with front-line states individually on this and other questions.

Has not the time come for Britain to take the initiative in trying to break the deadlock over Namibia? What is my hon. Friend's response to the call for a constitutional conference, to be convened by Britain and attended by all the political parties in Namibia, to try to decide on the best way to implement United Nations resolution 435?

We remain committed to Security Council resolution 435, which is the internationally agreed basis for a Namibian settlement. I understand the frustration felt because of the lack of progress, but I am convinced that the only real solution to the problems of Namibia lies in the territory being brought to internationally acceptable independence through the early implementation of the United Nations plan. We urgently need, not so much a conference to discuss the implementation of the United Nations plan, as the agreement of the South Africans to fulfil without further delay or precondition their formal commitment to Security Council resolution 435.

Can my hon. Friend confirm that under its present Administration Namibia is now free of apartheid?

I wish that I could confirm that that was true, but unfortunately as yet there is no Namibian legislation to end the key features of racial discrimination. I understand that something now occurring in Namibia may bring that about, but it is not yet in legislation. I must wait to see any legislation before I can answer my hon. Friend in the way that I would like to do.

Is the Minister aware of how important will be the United States role in any final settlement of the Namibian problem? What future is there for the idea of a concerted engagement while the United States is giving to Unita forces Stinger missiles that will be used against the legal Government of Angola? Does that not destroy any possibility of the United States having any influence in achieving the solution that we all want?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. Although I do not share all his views, he knows from our discussions that there is grave anxiety about the interconnections between Angola and Namibia. On another plane, the United States Administration has been making strenuous efforts to be more positive in trying to bring about the implementation of Security Council resolution 435 in Namibia. However, that does not excuse them for the position in which they now find themselves. We must watch the position with great care and try to influence what is happening.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind Britain's historic role in that part of Africa, which places us in a unique position to give a lead?

I understand my hon. Friend's frustration. We have met members of individual parties in circumstances where we do not recognise transitional or interim Governments, provided it is understood that those members of individual parties are requesting meetings with Ministers on that basis. It would not be sensible to meet representatives of a transitional or interim Government. The Namibia Office is on record as saying that it acts for the interim or transitional Government, and will not represent any individual party within that Government. That presents us with a difficult position. We shall continue to do our best to maintain official contacts, and we hope that future offers made by the Foreign Office will not be refused.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to receive the report of the Commonwealth group of eminent persons who recently visited South Africa.

Under the terms of the Commonwealth accord, the group is to report within a six-month period to the Heads of Government of the seven Commonwealth states, including the United Kingdom, charged with establishing the group. The present understanding is that this period should begin from 1 January 1986.

When my right hon. and learned Friend receives the report from the Commonwealth group, will he try to influence other Commonwealth leaders to make sure that the report is received on the basis of trying to promote peaceful dialogue and an end of violence, rather than of concentrating on the evidence of apartheid? Will he use his influence with other Commonwealth Governments to make sure that they do not upset the very happy atmosphere which has existed between the Commonwealth group and the South African Government?

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of the work of the group, which has been widely recognised, not only by the Governments constituting it, but by the front-line states, by the European Community, and more widely still. We certainly wish that its work will enable the process of dialogue, which is crucial to the ending of apartheid, to begin, and we will sustain the group as well as we can in the furtherance of that objective.

Would it not be useful if the Foreign Secretary told his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) that the violence and bloodshed in South Africa arise, first and foremost, from the denial of basic political rights to the majority of the people for so long? Will the Foreign Secretary tell us what pressure is being brought to bear by the British and other European Governments to ensure that Nelson Mandela is freed without conditions, and that this freedom from an imprisonment that has lasted for a quarter of a century is granted as quickly as possible?

It is unusual for me to be able to respond in an assenting fashion to the hon. Member, but I share his deep concern at the latest violence and deaths in South Africa. I underline, as we have often done, the urgent need for dialogue and for the suspension of violence, and I will continue to urge that on all parties. We have made it plain on many occasions that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela would constitute a major act of national reconciliation in South Africa, and could provide the impetus for genuine dialogue and peaceful settlement. We have stressed the importance of that move to the South African Government.

If it becomes increasingly clear, as is suspected more and more, that the South African Government have no real intention of introducing profound reforms, will that influence the Government's judgment about the need to proceed to full sanctions after the report has been studied?

I hope that my hon. Friend will preserve a more open mind than is implied by his question. The task of achieving the changes in South Africa that almost every Member of the House considers necessary is, by any standards, a very difficult one. The work being undertaken by the Commonwealth group requires it to make contact with many people, including the South African Government, in a very sensitive fashion. We must all be concerned not to prejudge what may or may not be a consequence of a process which is not yet finished, but rather to do everything in our power to sustain the process, understanding the difficulties on all sides, and not underestimating the urgency of the operation.

Will the Foreign Secretary use his influence, which is very substantial, as he has indicated, to ensure that the Commonwealth group makes its report in time for the House to debate it before the summer recess? Because Bishop Tutu has risked imprisonment to call for comprehensive economic sanctions against the South African Government, will he now increase economic pressure on South Africa to ensure the release of Nelson Mandela, so that discussions can take place between him and the South African Government, since Mandela is a representative of the African National Congress, which itself represents the overwhelming majority of black South Africans?

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman appears to base his question on a misunderstanding of what is taking place at the moment. The present stage, which results from the Commonwealth conference, is that the Commonwealth decided on certain measures to be taken, and that position was to be held until the Commonwealth group had completed its work. So it would be quite unfruitful for us now to begin taking isolated action of the kind that he suggests. The important thing is to maintain that atmosphere in which the constituent members of the group and their supporting Governments are reaching out to try to put in the next steps towards dialogue. That is what we are trying to do. I acknowledge the important role that Mr. Nelson Mandela could play, but I do not believe that a sudden resort to sanctions at this stage by us or by anyone else would help in promoting that role.

Mr. Peter Thurnham.

Will the Foreign Secretary answer the question?

Order.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the estimated costs of administering his Department during 1986–87.

The estimated gross running costs of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office during 1986–87 are £369 million for the diplomatic wing and £37 million for the ODA.

Can my hon. Friend say whether he expects any additional expenses due to increased duties relating to immigration controls and drug trafficking intelligence?

As I think my hon. Friend is aware, we have sent additional staff to posts in the subcontinent and have thus been able to reduce substantially waiting times for first interviews in the subcontinent. The latest figures show that all applicants applying for the first time can expect to be interviewed within 12 months. On the question of drugs, we have put additional resources in London and at overseas posts to try to combat the tremendous drug trafficking problems that we face throughout the world. Both immigration and drugs are good examples of where new demands on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have been met by the redeployment of existing resources.

Has the Minister read the Public Accounts Committee reports on Foreign Office estates and the exorbitant prices paid by British diplomats, funded by the Exchequer, for accommodation? Does he intend to intervene in the affair of the sale of a flat in Paris for some £800,000 with a view to making economies, when that flat was replaced by another at a cost of £450,000, so we are informed, with additional expenditure of several hundred thousand pounds on doing up the premises and on legal expenses? Where was the economy in that transaction? Should not the Department be reviewing its position?

With regard to the flat in Paris, the Minister's flat has been disposed of and a replacement flat has been purchased at a cost of about £450,000. That new flat is considerably smaller than the existing flat and will be much cheaper to run. As general policy, the Foreign Office is trying to reduce its reliance on rented property, since there is a considerable real increase in rents, and to increase its reliance on owned property.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Foreign Office has made great strides since the Falklands war, particularly under the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend? Furthermore, is he aware that we expect our diplomats to be housed properly? Compared with the cost of some local government, the entire cost of the Foreign Office is cheap at the price.

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are in the process of a further rationalisation of our overseas estates to ensure that we dispose of any surplus properties and use the funds so recycled to purchase more appropriate properties where necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make it his policy to consult his European counterparts to consider imposing sanctions including the suspension of air services on any country that harbours terrorists; and if he will make a statement.

Before dealing with this question, Mr. Speaker, may I respond to the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who obliterated the conclusion of our last question? I have not answered the second part of his quesion. It is not possible to say that the proceedings of the Commonwealth group will be determined or conditioned by the needs of the House, but certainly I shall try to bear the needs of the House in mind. The Commonwealth group will operate to achieve its own objectives.

I had hoped that the Secretary of State would be a little more forthcoming in his reply to my question. As the international airline pilots are holding their conference in London, will he send a message to that conference to let them know that Her Majesty's Government support their call for sanctions against countries such as Libya and Syria, for example, and that we shall ban flights to and from those countries as long as they continue their terrosist activities?

I am certainly very much aware of the real interest of the airline pilots in the war against terrorism, including, in particular, airborne terrorism. But the measure suggested in the hon. Lady's question, the suspension of air services, is considered only in the context of states failing to observe the relevant international conventions on hijacking. Not only do we condemn terrorism, but we have taken measures, and will urge those measures wherever necessary, including a full exchange of information and intelligence on terrorists and the effective monitoring of the movement and actions of terrorists to ensure that they are in compliance with the law, and in cases such as Libya, as the House well knows, the conclusion of diplomatic relations, the prohibition of the export of defence equipment and, perhaps most important, the imposition of severe restrictions on Libyan immigration to Britain. We are certainly ready to press for the taking of the most appropriate range of measures as effectively as possible in that kind of case.

In view of what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said about the steps already taken by Her Majesty's Government to prevent air piracy and international terrorism, does he not think that one contribution we could make to the cause of international air safety would be to give their marching orders to those Libyans at present employed at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, with airside security passes provided to them? What advice has his Department given to the Home Department in this regard?

My hon. Friend recognises the importance of the steps that we have already taken to impose severe restrictions on Libyan emigration to Britain. That control is exercised by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has made his views on international terrorism very clear. He has made it equally clear that he is willing to act against those who seek to import violence, and he has the particular measures under constant review.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held in the European Community Foreign Affairs Council regarding a supplementary budget later in the current year; and if he will make a statement.

The most recent discussion was during the Council of Finance Ministers held at the same time as the Foreign Affairs Council, on 10 March. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Knowles), on 14 March.

How could the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues have underestimated Common Market spending by so much that a supplementary budget is necessary? Does the Minister not agree that Community spending is now out of control? What about the budget discipline that we have heard so much about?

It is not that Community spending is out of control, unless certain nations, and that excludes this country, press for unrealistic agriculture budgets. What the Commission will be proposing in a supplementary budget this year will be a provision of about 450 mecu. to increase our 1985 abatement. It has also said that it will propose a supplementary provision for agriculture, which arises from the fall in the dollar-ecu rate. In our view, the correct response should be to seek savings in the agriculture budget and in that way reduce the surplus. We should then be in a far better position not to require such a repetition of events.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the next meeting to take place between his officials and members of the African National Congress; and if he will make a statement.

As foreshadowed to the House on 5 March, contacts between officials and the ANC are continuing as appropriate. The central purpose of such contact is to bring home to the ANC the importance of a suspension of violence on all sides in South Africa in order to promote constructive dialogue. We have not agreed to any ministerial contact.

I welcome the decision of my right hon. and learned Friend's officials to meet the ANC. Can he confirm that the eminent persons group has also had meetings with the ANC? As the ANC represents the views of the large majority of non-white people in South Africa, notwithstanding the propaganda put out to the contrary by the South African Government, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that as much conversation and dialogue as possible take place so that we can try to find a solution in South Africa by peaceful means and avoid the violent means that will be inevitable if that is not achieved?

The Commonwealth eminent persons group met a wide range of people both inside and outside South Africa, including, of course, representatives or members of the ANC. That contact has been provided for because of the role that they occupy, or could occupy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now seek to re-establish diplomatic relations with Argentina; and if he will make a statement.

As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) on 5 March, we wish to move towards more normal relations with Argentina. We have taken numerous steps to achieve this; the Argentine Government have still to respond constructively.

Is the Minister aware that there has been a rapid erosion of international support for the Government's inflexible policy, which is, in the meantime, costing the hard-pressed British taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds every year? Does he not realise that every other party in the House is committed to ending that absurd policy straight after the next election? In those circumstances, will he do more to protect the interests of British taxpayers?

The majority of the cost is behind us now, as expenditure on Mount Pleasant airport has decreased. But is the hon. Gentleman really saying that all other parties are prepared to pay no attention to the Falklanders' right of self-determination?

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Does it arise from questions?

Yes, Sir.

Then I will take it.

I wish to raise a brief and entirely non-partisan point of order, which I think will be of interest to hon. Members on both sides of the House. In reply to question 3, concerning another country's citizens receiving military training in Britain, the Minister gave a full answer and an exchange followed between hon. Members on both sides of the House, about which no one can complain. But when, in a supplementary question, I asked whether similar information—

Order. Points of order must interest me.

They will, or at least I hope they will. When I then asked whether similar questions could be answered about other countries, I was told that the answer was no, because such arrangements were confidential as between the countries concerned—

Order. I am afraid that that is not my responsibility.