asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of United Kingdom nationals in Libya.

Our consistent advice since April 1984 has been that British citizens choosing to live and work in Libya do so on their own responsibility and that consular assistance and protection is limited. We have more recently advised the withdrawal of dependants and non-essential staff. Our consul in Tripoli is in close contact with representatives of the British community, which now numbers around 3,500.

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Does he concede that some events have taken place since the United States bombing? In view of the statement by the United States President and Vice President in the last few days about the possibility — indeed, the probability — of the United States taking action against terrorists or state-sponsored terrorism in other countries, such as Syria, what advice does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office offer to British nationals in Syria, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere?

That is a far-ranging question, founded on a number of far-ranging assumptions. Our advice to travellers in all the areas where tension has increased or where there is a risk of terrorist violence—for example, in certain parts of Beirut—is to make their own judgments, at their own risk, and on their own responsibility.

As my right hon. and learned Friend would not wish British citizens to be expelled from Libya solely on the ground that they are British citizens, can he confirm that no Libyan students have been or will be expelled from this country solely on the ground that they are Libyans? Does he agree that the training of Arab students in Britain is very much in our long-term interests?

I assure my hon. Friend that action taken in respect of Libyans, whether students or otherwise, who are resident here is on the basis of evidence and because of security considerations, not on the basis of any general categorisation.

Does the Secretary of State believe that British nationals living abroad or at home are safer from terrorism now than they were before the bombing raid, or does he share Secretary of State Shultz's assessment that Colonel Gaddafi may be more dangerous now than before?

I have not seen that assessment, but there is no doubt that the risk of terrorism and of injury to innocent people as a result of terrorism is more likely to increase in the face of inaction by countries such as ours.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us will be not be particularly sympathetic to British nationals who find themselves in difficulties in the future, because it has been made abundantly clear that risk is involved in going to Libya and they will be extremely foolhardy to go there at this time?

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said, and I understand his point. We have, of course, no legal means of preventing British citizens from visiting or remaining in Libya, but our advice is clear.

Will the Secretary of State nevertheless make it clear that British nationals who have married and now live in Libya will have no impediment put in their way or in the way of their families if they wish to come here to visit their relatives?

In today's world many people are parties to cross-national marriages and Governments have to react to situations and treat them sympathetically. There is no question of any retaliation by ourselves or of any measures being taken against peopele solely because of their nationality or marital status.

Is it not true that, by and large. British nationals living in Libya are contributing something to that country — whether it be special skills, experience or business acumen—in return for stability and, perhaps, even their own safety? Therefore, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the safety of British nationals should not always cloud the judgment of our foreign policy?

I take the point made by my hon. Friend. Of course the safety of British nationals cannot be the only consideration in foreign policy. However, I hope that the day will never come when it can be said that Her Majesty's Government are heedless of the safety of subjects of this country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have been held in the European Economic Community Foreign Affairs Council concerning the debt crisis; and if he will make a statement.

I attended the Foreign Affairs Council on 27 January, at which we discussed debt. We recognised the seriousness of the debt problem and endorsed the case-by-case approach as the right response.

After all the self-congratulation at Tokyo, is it not time that the Minister addressed herself to the growing problems of those countries which cannot service their overseas debts without making their impoverished people even poorer? Should there not be some action on the state-sponsored terrorism of the international banking system?

The hon. Gentleman is in a slight muddle. We have already given grave consideration to the problems of the poorest countries. That is how we came to give £987 million in retrospective adjustments to 21 of the poorest countries. Only the Federal Republic of Germany has a better record.

Did the Foreign Affairs Council discuss the impending debt crisis within the European Community following the failure of the budgetary discipline arrangement? Will the Government exercise the United Kingdom veto on any proposal to raise the 1·4 per cent. VAT limit?

It is fair to say that when we speak of the debt crisis we mean nations which are far poorer than any single nation of the collective entity of the European Community.

I suggest that the Government do not understand the urgency of the problem. Has the hon. Lady seen the report last month by Morgan Guarantee, which showed that the net outflow of funds from Latin American countries alone was £123 billion? Does that not make a mockery of the aid that we give them? Will the Government suggest to our European partners that there should be some sort of collective action, such as interest capping, so that this problem can be dealt with properly?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that not only do we constantly consider in the margins what can best be done to help, but that we have especially been considering the oil exporting debtors who become major beneficiaries under the Baker plan.

In view of the deliciously forthright answer that my hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts), will she confirm that if the European Community were to come up with a budget that reached the 1·4 per cent. ceiling, and then asked for a supplementary budget, the Government would turn that down flat, too?

Once again, my hon. Friend is dreaming dreams of things that he might like to happen, but which we intend to ensure will not happen. If, beyond the supplementary budget proposed, which is the 1·4 per cent. ceiling, a further supplementary budget were to come forward, it would depend on exactly why it had come forward. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I say that with sound advice. I must tell my hon. Friend that when there has been a 25 per cent. fall in the value of the dollar against the ecu, which could not have been foreseen, we must cope with reality, not blind theory.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will ask the European Economic Community Council to condemn any United States military aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received regarding doctors in the Contra forces in Nicaragua being involved in the torture of political prisoners; and what action he has taken.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by the European Economic Community Council to the United States of America about its policy towards Nicaragua.

We and our European partners have repeatedly made clear our conviction that the problems of Central America can be resolved only through a negotiated settlement based on the Contadora objectives rather than by armed forces. We have ensured that our views are well known.

Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that Congress is likely to approve military aid to the Contra forces? Does he agree that that is contrary to international law? What does his colleague the Foreign Secretary propose to do about it?

We advocate a political solution, through the Contadora process, rather than a military solution. We believe that Nicaragua should negotiate seriously on the basis of the Contadora objectives and avoid actions such as the recent incursion into Honduras.

Will the hon. Gentleman renew his efforts to obtain more information, because of reports from Nicaragua to the effect that doctors are being used for the purpose mentioned in my question? Will he mobilise the forces of Amnesty International, and perhaps the BMA, which have been instrumental in collecting a large amount of material, not necessarily from Nicaragua, but from different parts of the world where doctors have been used in the implementation of torture?

We have made extensive inquiries. We have no such reports in our possession. If the hon. Lady has such information. I should be grateful is she would make it available.

Does the EEC intend to sit back and allow the Contadora process to be sabotaged by increasing United States involvement in the guerrilla war in Nicaragua?

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Community supports the Contadora process and believes that progress can be made through political dialogue and economic co-operation. The Twelve in the Community are in close touch with the Contadora group. The Community's role is to provide support for the Contadora group's efforts. The economic co-operation agreement, which was signed in Luxembourg in November, offered practical support.

What is the attitude of the Government of Nicaragua to the peace treaty which was proposed recently by the Contadora group?

Obviously we want Nicaragua to end its support for guerrillas in neighbouring countries and to make progress towards a genuine pluralist democracy. We believe that the suspenson of certain civil rights in Nicaragua last October was a step in the wrong direction.

What advice does my hon. Friend think the European Community Foreign Affairs Council should give to local authorities, such as Leicester, which intend to twin with Nicaragua? Will that help, or hinder, the Contras?

I do not think that the conduct of Leicester city council is a matter of great concern.

Will the Government inform their colleagues in America that they should consider United States history? The United States gained power after a struggle against the British, and only later did it have democratic elections. Nicaragua is in precisely the same position. Nicaragua has a democratically elected Government. The United States of America should not support those who are trying to overthrow a democratically elected Government who are carrying out policies on behalf of the Nicaraguan people.

The armed forces and nearly all the national institutions in Nicaragua are under the control of the Sandinista political party. The draft constitution under discussion in Nicaragua provides for the formalisation of these powers. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that that is a democratic system?

If international terrorism is to be condemned, as it should be, why did the international summit in Tokyo not condemn the way in which President Reagan and the United States Administration are arming and supporting the bandits who are carrying out terrorist acts against the elected Government in Nicaragua? Why are there double standards?

There was a brief discussion among the Foreign Ministers at the Tokyo summit about the position in Central America. All the Foreign Ministers supported the efforts of the small democratic nations of Central America to make democracy work in their region. Mr. Shultz reiterated the United States' continuing support for the Contadora proposals for peaceful resolution of disputes in the area.

I understand the American sphere of influence argument and recognise that our influence in the area is now limited to Belize, but is my hon. Friend sure that the Americans understand that there is growing concern in the United Kingdom about the Nicaraguan situation, which appears to be deteriorating?

I do not entirely accept the premise on which my hon. Friend's question is based. However, we have made clear to the United States Government our views on the position in Central America.

Did the Government remind President Reagan at the Tokyo summit that his proposals for military' aid to the Contras involved the United States in a most blatant form of state terrorism, because the Contras have engaged in horrifying atrocities, including torture and mutilation, against innocent women and children, and they are now accused in the United States of drug running and of plotting the murder of an American ambassador in Central America? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, so long as President Reagan supports such activities, he has no right whatever to claim to be an opponent of state terrorism?

I think that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to draw a parallel between the United States' action in Libya and its action in Nicaragua, which simply does not stand up to any examination. Gaddafi has committed the Libyan Government to organising and directing a worldwide campaign of terrorist violence against innocent people outside Libya. In Nicaragua, the Contras and the Nicaraguans have resorted to armed struggle against their own Government. The Contras do not seek to advance their cause by terrorist acts in third countries.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether all vehicles owned or operated by his Department are British-made; and what proportion of vehicles owned by his Department's staff and purchased with his Department's financial assistance are British made.

The diplomatic wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office owns and operates a total of 1,061 vehicles at home and abroad. Eighty-seven per cent. of these are British made. Of the 338 Diplomatic Service officers who received financial assistance towards car purchase during the last financial year, 74 per cent. bought British cars.

Does my hon. Friend agree that those who represent us overseas should promote British products and drive British cars when they are bought with public money? What steps will my hon. Friend take to increase those percentages of British-made goods?

As I hope I have already made clear, representational officers are expected to run British cars, wherever possible. In some areas that is not possible, because of lack of servicing capability, and so on. I should point out that if all British companies and individuals owned and ran the same percentage of British cars as are run by Diplomatic Service officers, the British motor industry would not be in its present difficulties.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the question of international terrorism with the other Foreign Ministers of the European Community.

The most recent discussion among Foreign Ministers of the Twelve was on 21 April. Terrorism was also dealt with by Ministers of the Interior in the Trevi group framework on 23 and 24 April. I discussed it at the Tokyo summit with those European Foreign Ministers who were present. The outcome among the Twelve and at Tokyo has been agreement on specific measures for effective national and collective international action against terrorism.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take an early opportunity to tell his European colleagues that the decisions reached at Tokyo, which were reached largely through the efforts of our own Prime Minister, have widespread support in the House? Will he consider extending those measures to all countries engaged in state-sponsored terrorism, not merely Libya? In that context, will he confirm the report in The Times today that the Foreign Office has asked for the withdrawal of a Syrian diplomat who has been engaged in terrorist activity in this country?

I do not face any difficulty in following the first part of my hon. Friend's advice, because my European colleagues were well aware of the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to measures of this kind and to secure the endorsement of them in Europe. It is clear that the measures agreed in Europe and Tokyo are intended to be applied in suitably proven cases to other examples of state-sponsored terrorism.

Will the declared intent at Tokyo, and possibly in Europe as well, to limit the number of diplomats from certain countries require an amendment to the treaty of Vienna?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we took action two years ago in respect of the near total establishment of the Libyan People's Bureau. We have taken action more recently in connection with the reduction of numbers, and we remain ready to do so in suitable cases.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is a real risk that all the welcome action being taken against terrorism in the middle east may be vitiated by the lack of progress in tackling one of its fundamental causes—the Palestinian problem?

As my hon. Friend will recall, in the debate on this subject a couple of weeks ago the point was made strongly from both sides of the House that we need to address ourselves to the search for progress on the peace process in the middle east. It must be said that at present the opportunities for such progress are not looking too hopeful, but we shall continue to look for them.

In the Foreign Secretary's discussions on 21 April, did he relate to the other Foreign Ministers the content of his letter to me of 17 April which defined state-sponsored terrorism as being where a state recruits, trains and finances terrorists? Over the following three weeks, in refusing to condemn the United States' military aid for the Contras in Nicaragua, was he aware of reports which appeared in The Observer on Sunday, which described the assassination of Nicaraguan people by the Contras by a method known as the tie—the victim's throat is cut and his tongue is pulled out over his breastplate to form a tie? What other description is there for assassination such as that than state-sponsored terrorism?

The hon. Gentleman makes a long connection with an elaborate account of some incident he has seen reported. On the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has just said.

In dealing with terrorism, my right hon. and learned Friend will know how vital it is to obtain agreement on extradition procedures. What further steps does he propose to take to persuade the Americans of the importance that we attach to the Senate passing the Extradition Treaty Bill?

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Extradition procedures are important. That is why improvement of those procedures was one of the points specifically agreed by the Tokyo summit. In that context, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I underlined to the President and the Secretary of State the importance that we attach to ratification of that treaty. They left us in no doubt about the commitment of the American Administration to that end, and they and we are doing everything possible to secure the right answer from Congress.

Will the Foreign Secretary exercise some caution, even in the justifiable indictment of Libya, so that he does not fall into the trap of putting all the Arab nations against us, in order to satisfy the aims of the United States-Israeli axis?

There is no question of the Government taking any action to satisfy the aims of that or any other axis for its own sake. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's point that it would be wrong to allow the justified condemnation of Libyan state-directed terrorism to lead us into any general position of confrontation or disagreement with the other Arab states.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, in contrast with the European Parliament, when the 20 countries of the Council of Europe met at their Assembly recently, when the subject of Libyan terrorism was debated, many of them seemed thoroughly ashamed of their previous inaction and recognised both the importance of the Atlantic Alliance in this context and the need for more robust action by all of them to combat terrorism?

I am delighted to hear the report given by my hon. Friend. We welcome support for our position from the European Council assembly, as from everywhere else.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government take when foreign Heads of Government are assassinated.

We have consistently condemned the assassination of Heads of Government. Most recently, I am sure the whole House will have had feelings of profound sympathy for the Swedish Government and people following the assassination of Mr. Palme. In that case we offered all possible assistance to the Swedish Government.

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. In view of the well-documented evidence of CIA involvement in assassination attempts, successful or otherwise, in Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Iran and Nicaragua, has he made it patently clear to the Americans, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that we would not support any assassination attempt on Colonel Gaddafi, covertly or otherwise? While he is at it, will he also make it clear to the House that no British personnel are involved in any part of the world in attempts to destabilise countries or assassinate legitimate Heads of State, whatever we might think of them?

I really do think that the hon. Gentleman is being even more absurd than he normally is. I cannot go further than say what I have already said—that of course the Government consistently condemn the assassination of Heads of Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been no grievous loss to the civilised world if Colonel Gaddafi had died in the raid on Libya?

Obviously my hon. Friend has his own view of Colonel Gaddafi's contribution to Western civilisation.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will list those countries in respect of which Her Majesty's Government have evidence that they harbour or give assistance to terrorists or terrorist organisations.

It would be both misleading and unwise to publish a list as requested by the hon. and learned Member. Evidence frequently does not constitute proof, and much of it is, of course, of a very sensitive nature. The continuing campaign against terrorism requires careful evaluation of evidence of this kind.

As the Foreign Secretary has frequently said that there is both evidence and proof that Libya trains, recruits, harbours and assists terrorists, is it correct that Libyan planes are still permitted to land in this country, and if so, why?

Because there are still continuing air services between Libya and most other countries of western Europe. There is still a substantial British community in Libya, which is dependent to some extent on those services, including those coming from this country. Taking account of all the circumstances, we have not concluded that the point has yet been reached when that situation should be changed.

While it may not be appropriate to publish a list, is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is growing concern about the situation in Tamil Nadu, in particular over the succouring and training of terrorists in that state within the sovereign state of India? The result has been that three British nationals died last weekend in the bombing of Colombo airport, and we hear today that there are further terrorist activities in Colombo. Is it not time that we made strong representations to the Indian Government to stop that training in Tamil Nadu?

I do not know that one should necessarily reach the conclusion from which my hon. Friend starts his question, but clearly we are concerned with the continuing violence resulting from terrorist incidents within Sir Lanka and have discussed the matter with the Indian Government.

Are not those Governments who refuse to act by banning kidnap insurance assisting terrorism? Will the Foreign Secretary meet the Irish Foreign Minister to find out what happened over the incident of the Bell shipping lines executive who was stopped at Dublin airport with £300,000 in his suitcase and who was found to be working in conjunction with Control Risks Group Ltd., a London company? Will he find out what happened during that incident and why that money was being taken to the Republic of Ireland?

If the facts as retailed to the House by the hon. Gentleman are correct, clearly they deserve interested attention, whether by the prosecuting authorities, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, or by me. I shall draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friends.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets his Irish counterpart, will he ask him when he proposes to put to an end his country's counter-trade with Libya of food for arms for the IRA?

I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are concerned with the supply of arms to the IRA.

Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied with the progress towards the extradition of wanted Irish Republican terrorists from the United States of America?

That question has already been raised with my hon. Friend the Minister of State. It is an important question. I repeat that we have impressed upon the American Administration the importance attached by Her Majesty's Government to ratification of the treaty that is now before Congress and, with their help, are doing everything possible to impress that point upon Members of Congress.

As state-sponsored terrorism is a belligerent act which affects the security of all democracies, not least those in western Europe, why have my right hon. and learned Friend and Her Majesty's Government, under the Brussels treaty, not responded, through the Western European Union, in a concerted way to this threat? Why have they responded so negatively to the proposal for a counter-terrorist task force, as proposed by the President of the Assembly of the WEU, Mr. Caro?

We discussed this matter with the President of the WEU Assembly at the WEU meeting in Venice last week and made plain to him the view of the WEU council that there is no need to establish a fresh international body such as the task force recommended by the Assembly, because there are more than enough agencies already at work that are involved in co-operation. However, at the WEU council meeting we underlined very strongly indeed the need for effective and early action by members of the WEU and the European Community along the lines already undertaken.

Surely there should be no partiality in the condemnation of the sponsorship of terrorism? Has the Foreign Secretary in recent times brought to the attention of Mr. Shultz the deep disquiet felt by many people in this country over American-sponsored terrorism in Nicaragua?

That point has already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in answer to a number of questions, but I make the distinction yet again that there is a total difference between those terrorist organisations that are dedicated to the infliction of indiscriminate damage on innocent people in third countries and the context in which Nicaraguan subjects are engaged within the frontiers of Nicaragua.

I accept my right hon. and learned Friend's view that there should not be a list, for the reasons that he has given to the House, but will he accept that his Department might do more to advise people in this country who are going to countries such as Sri Lanka of the dangers that they might encounter, bearing in mind the sad experience in Colombo at the end of last week? I point out to my right hon. and learned Friend that two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. James French, were in the plane that blew up, but, fortunately, they escaped serious injury.

I understand my hon. Friend's concern. We extend advice about the dangers of travel to different parts of the world. In many cases, however, we cannot give specific advice about a specific hazard that is likely to arise. In addition, we underline the need for people who are about to travel to study closely the conditions in the countries to which they are going.

Which view does the Foreign Secretary share — that expressed yesterday by both President Reagan and Vice-President Bush, that Syria would be a suitable candidate for possible unilateral American military action, perhaps involving the use of sea-launched cruise missiles, that of Prime Minister Craxi, that further unilateral military action against a supposedly terrorist state would be in clear breach of the understanding reached in Tokyo, or that of Prime Minister Nakasone, that every country that was represented in Tokyo has the right to interpret the new communiqué as it wishes? What is left of the Prime Minister's great achievement in Tokyo after that?

After that confusing question, it would be extremely interesting to know just which of the alternative propositions put by the right hon. Member is the one to which he attaches himself. Does he wish to see effective action against terrorism? The commitment entered into by the seven communiqué countries was a commitment on effective, collective international action, and not related to the prospect of military onslaught on any given country.

As Sinn Fein is the political wing of a proscribed terrorist organisation, why do we not put our own house in order and proscribe it as the Southern Irish do?

That question raises different considerations, although I understand the importance of them. One important point to be taken into account in this context is that conflicts that arise in Ireland and Northern Ireland take place in the context of a society with a fully representative democratic system.

Will the Foreign Secretary now answer the question about Syria? Does he recognise that it provides a haven for particularly ruthless terrorists, and if he does, does he advocate bombing or some other realistic and more promising means to deal with the terrorist threat from there?

The measures that we advocate, and to which the summit countries and Community countries are committed, are collective, effective international actions similar to those set out in detail in the communiqué from Tokyo and from the European Community. Whether those measures should be taken against any given state will depend upon whether there is plain proof of state involvement in terrorism, suitable to deserve the response suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the prospect of an end to the Iran-Iraq war.

Regrettably, there are no signs of any early end to the Iran-Iraq conflict. We believe, however, that the international community must continue its efforts to secure full implemention of Security Council resolution 582 which calls, among other things, for an immediate ceasefire. We continue to lend full support to the efforts of the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his search for a negotiated settlement.

In the light of recent allegations that European arms dealers are rushing to supply arms to Iraq, will my hon. Friend confirm that he remains opposed to British companies selling arms to either country in this tragic conflict?

I can assure my hon. Friend that all applications to export defence-related equipment to either Iran or Iraq are subject to the granting of an export licence and we refuse such licences when we consider that the equipment could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the situation. I wish that other Governments would follow our strict example.

Will the Minister advise the Prime Minister, as she prepares to go to Israel later this month, to condemn the flow of arms to both parties in this dispute, but especially those arms that might be sent to Iran by way of Israel?

I have no doubt that the question of the Iran-Iraq dispute will be discussed during the forthcoming visit to Israel by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I also hope to discuss it when the Secretary-General of the United Nations is here this coming weekend.

Is my hon. Friend aware that before the days of the Shah of Persia, Britain kept peace in the middle east for 400 years? In this case, what steps are Her Majesty's Government taking, with our vast experience in the middle east and our diplomatic skills, to effect a ceasefire?

I am glad to be assured by my hon. Friend that in past centuries Britain had such a great influence over the Ottoman empire. Through our diplomatic missions in the Gulf, and through our membership of the Security Council, we have continual discussions with all the parties in the middle east who could bring this tragic conflict to an end. It is worth reminding the House that more than 500,000 people have been killed in the Iran-Iraq war. I hope that the Islamic conference and the Arab League will add their efforts to those of the United Nations Secretary-General and so bring the conflict to an end.

I should be interested to know how the Minister reconciles his declared policy on arms supply with the supply of Chieftan spare parts from an RAF airfield. What investigations have the Government made into the allegations that a building in Victoria street is the main entrepot for the procurement of arms for Iran? What counter have the Government made to American allegations that we are failing to co-operate with them over the extradition of British nationals who face indictments in the United States for illegal arms supply to Iran? What investigations have been made about allegations of the illegal use of diplomatic bags by Iran for the export of arms?

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that recently no new applications for the export of arms that would significantly prolong the conflict on either side have been approved. If the Iranian procurement office wished to export war materials, that would have to be covered by an appropriate licence. We have not received any applications for such licences. If we obtained evidence of illegal activity in that context, we would take the appropriate steps without delay. I am unaware of any request for extradition from the United States along the lines mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, but I shall pass on his remarks to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on recent discussions with King Hussein of Jordan or Mr. Peres, the Prime Minister of Israel, regarding the peace process in the middle east.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had useful talks with King Hussein on 17 April. She and I had similarly useful exchanges with Mr. Peres during his visit to London in January.

Since King Hussein has apparently lost patience with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, and since the Israelis will not deal with them, will the Prime Minister use her forthcoming visit to Israel to effect a revival of Mr. Murphy's diplomatic initiative to bring Jordan and Israel directly together under the appropriate international auspices?

My hon. Friend is right to acknowledge that we are in a period of reassessment following the suspension of the Jordanian-Palestinian joint action. It is right that we should actively consider ways of taking the peace process forward. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take advantage of her visit to Israel later this month to discuss what practical steps can be taken.

Does the Foreign Secretary know whether Yasser Arafat and King Hussein have fallen out? Unless the PLO is included in any discussion, there will be no peace in the middle east. Would it not be more useful for the Prime Minister, when she goes to Israel, to make it clear that she intends that the PLO will be involved in negotiations?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we do not accept that the PLO is the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, although since the Venice declaration is has been clear that it should play a part in the negotiations. The key is that the Palestinians should choose an outcome which they can willingly accept, and the most frustrating deficiency in the present position is the absence of any effective group to represent the Palestinian side of the case.

What representations has my right hon. and learned Friend made to the Government of Israel about the outrageous abuses of human rights meted out to the Palestinians on the West Bank?

We have on a number of occasions engaged in frank dialogue with the Israeli Government about conditions on the West Bank, including human rights, and have made it clear to them that Israeli settlements there are illegal and an obstacle to progress.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there can be no question of the Palestinians choosing an outcome until they have the right to establish a Palestinian state? Will the Government put pressure on the Jordanians and the Israelis to try to reach an agreement as quickly as possible for the establishment of such a state, because I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) that there can be no peace in the middle east until such a state is established?

I do not want to be misunderstood. We support the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. That is of crucial importance. That means that they should be able to choose what attainable constitutional arrangements they can willingly accept. In those circumstances, we constantly urge, probably more actively than any other country, upon the Governments of Jordan and Israel and others the need for them to move towards a negotiating process that takes account of the rights of the Palestinian people.

Bearing in mind that terrorism, of which we have heard a great deal this afternoon, is an ugly symptom of the underlying problem in the middle east, will my right hon. and learned Friend do everything in his power to persuade the United States Administration to spend less time talking about the symptom and more doing something about the problem, possibly in an even-handed manner?

Quite apart from the connection between terrorism and the long-standing dispute in the middle east, it is obviously of the highest importance for all concerned to take every possible step to try to bring that dispute to a conclusion, and we certainly urge the importance of that in discussions with the United States as well as others. I agree with my hon. Friend.

When the Prime Minister makes her welcome visit to Israel, will she visit the West Bank, and if so, which Palestinians will she meet there? Will she take the opportunity of putting in clear terms to the Israeli Administration our fears that the Shamir Administration, which is likely to come into being in October, will lead to a new and intensified settlements policy?

It would not be in the interests of security, among other things, for me to give any insight into the programme foreshadowed for my right hon. Friend, but, regardless of the changes in Administration that may take place in Israel, whether as a result of rotation or otherwise, I am sure that she will continue to make plain to the Israeli Government the need to take account of the Palestinians and the conditions which they face on the West Bank, along the lines of my earlier answer.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the development of Community policies in the European Community.

We shall continue to work to make the Community competitive in the new technologies and to seek early completion of the internal market, reform of the common agricultural policy, a reduction in the burdens on business, improvements in world trade and strengthened co-operation in foreign policy.

Will my hon. Friend impress on her colleagues at the Treasury that one of the main stumbling blocks to the development of the Community in economic terms is Britain's failure to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

I think my hon. Friend knows well that we are ready to join the exchange rate mechanism when we judge the conditions to be right. However, the balance of the arguments still seems to be that it is not in our interests to do so. When it is, we shall join.

Last month the Foreign Secretary described the fight for budget discipline as being a fight without end. In the light of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee's report of today, it seems obvious that the fight is about to end with yet another special levy on the British taxpayers in order to bail out the farm budget of the European Community. Just how long does the hon. Lady believe that this fantasy world of finance will hold up, and how long will the British rebate be safe?

The British rebate will be safe. Thanks to the pressure of budget discipline in this year's price fixing, there will be a reduction of some £500 million in CAP costs in 1986–87. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we cannot ignore the 25 per cent. drop in the value of the dollar vis à vis the ecu. We must ensure that the budget council scrutinises the supplementary budget rigorously for potential savings. The Community must stay within the 1·4 per cent. VAT ceiling in 1986–87, in accordance with the Fontainebleau agreement. Every possible effort is being made to stop surpluses at source so that they do not eat up so much of the budget.

Why were the terms of the Luxembourg compromise not incorporated in the Single European Act?

There is no need for the terms of the Luxembourg compromise to be incorporated in the Single European Act. It is not altered in any way by the European Communities (Amendment) Bill or the Single European Act. It remains as it was and it will continue to be used if and when necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in the light of the recent change of Government in Uganda, he has any plans to increase the number of places available to Ugandan Civil Service trainees at the Civil Service college; and if he will make a statement.

President Museveni's Government have asked us to resume our programme of help to the Ugandan Civil Service. An adviser on public administration is now in Kampala to discuss how best this can be done. We shall ensure that the college helps as far as possible to meet Uganda's need for assistance in public administration.

Would not a really substantial offer of places for administrative training be a timely and practical support for a new Government who have inherited a terrible legacy of terrorism, violence and disorder? Would not such an offer partly compensate for the British Government's previous provision of military training to Obote's terrorists until a few weeks before he fell?

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that Uganda needs help to train her civil servants. That is exactly why we have an adviser on public administration in Kampala to discuss with the Ugandan Government how help can best be provided. Whatever considerations he comes up with will be considered by the Ugandan Government and then by us. We shall help in whatever way we can.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his assessment to the current obstacles, besides the question of verification, to the negotiation of a ban on nuclear tests.

Any negotiations would need to deal with difficult questions such as scope, duration and compliance, but the key issue is verification. A resumption of negotiations would be premature until there is progress on that.

The Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition a fortnight ago that the Government wanted a comprehensive test ban treaty established. If verification is the obstacle, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the technical problems have already been overcome, to the satisfaction of all the other countries involved in the non-proliferation treaty, and that the Russians have offered on-site inspection—an unprecedented offer, which they have resisted previously? Why are the Government continuing to drag their heels? Is it that they want to go ahead with their own nuclear testing programme and have no interest in a test ban treaty?

The Government want progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty, but we do not accept that recent arguments, including those advanced by the hon. Gentleman, invalidate the conclusions about verification that are to be found in the paper that we presented at the conference on disarmament in July last year.

In the light of the mendacity and evasions that we have experienced regarding the Chernobyl disaster, is it any use reaching any conclusions with a power such as the Soviet Union without verification?

There is no doubt that the absence of candour by the Soviet Union in reporting or disclosing information about the Chernobyl disaster underlines the importance of the verification issue, which raises similar questions.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept the growing American view that we cannot ban nuclear testing so long as we rely on nuclear deterrence and the existence of nuclear weapons?

We believe that it should be possible to achieve agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty, and we are certainly committed to seeking progress in that direction.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation in Afghanistan following his recent visit to south-west Asia.

I listened to representations from Afghan refugees, and discussed the matter with the Pakistan Government and with the provincial Government in Peshawar. The presence in Pakistan of 3 million refugees poses very real problems. I visited a refugee hospital and camp, and was deeply struck by the human consequences of the war. The key to peace is the immediate withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. To that end we fully support the talks at present being held under United Nations auspices.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Mujahidin must be involved in any peacemaking process?

Clearly it is important that the peace-making process should produce an outcome acceptable to the Afghan people.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further consideration is to be given by the European Economic Community Council to relations with Libya, in the light of the United States military attack on Libya.

The EC member states have already put in place a wide range of measures designed to combat Libyan-inspired terrorism, and have made plain their determination to resist it. That has also been the subject of close consultation with the United States, most recently at the Tokyo summit, where agreement was reached on a continuing programme of effective collective action.

Is it not clear that the Foreign Secretary is the odd man out in the EEC regarding the United States' bombing attack on Libya? Has he learnt lessons from that, and will he give us an assurance that there will be no repeat performance?

It is far from clear that I occupy the position of odd man out. Indeed, the extent to which we could secure widespread agreement throughout the Community in support of the action programme we have suggested is remarkable.

With your permission, Mr. Armstrong, I should like to press the Financial Secretary to explain the change in business. As the Committee will recall, yesterday we had before us a procedural motion which outlined the order in which the clauses would be taken on the Floor of the House. Some of us, especially those who had tabled a motion to reduce the petrol price by 2p, which was to have been considered first this afternoon, were surprised at the motion to change the order of business. It would be helpful to the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman explained why this rather unusual and rapid change of business has been proposed.

For the convenience of the Committee, I shall explain the reason. I shall not go into the substance of the point. The proposed amendment may not lead to a reduction in the price of petrol. It may lead to an increase in vehicle excise duty. I thought that it would be for the convenience of the official Opposition if we took the clauses in a different order. That matter was considered through the usual channels. We have plenty of time, I gather, to discuss both issues. That was the sole reason for the change.

With your permission Mr. Armstrong, I do not think that that is a very satisfactory explanation. As the Financial Secretary and the Committee will know, the price of petrol considerably affects rural areas, not least areas such as west Derbyshire and Ryedale. I always hesitate to think badly of Ministers, or of the usual channels, which do not incorporate these Benches, but, like other hon. Members, I shall be interested to hear the attitude of the Labour party to the change of business. Last year on the Finance Bill, the Labour party opposed changes in the price of petrol and the increase in petrol duty. I had assumend that Labour Members would want to seek the full glare of publicity for the alliance motion by taking it early in the debate, so that voters in tomorrow's elections and all the people in rural areas could note that the alliance and Labour Members opposed the increase in petrol tax and—

Order. The hon. Member must not debate his proposed amendment on petrol. He must stick to the business of the Committee.

Of course, Mr. Armstrong, but I think that you will agree that it is unusual for the business to be changed in this way. Although the inheritance tax —it is proposed to be the first business that we consider—is important to some, it is not important to the large majority of people in the same way as petrol duty, which the Government have increased substantially. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I were anxious to have an extensive debate on the increase in petrol taxes arid an opportunity to reduce the price of petrol, especially for people in rural areas.

Am I not right in thinking, from the way in which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) is advancing the argument, that the alliance's policy is that vehicle excise duty could be phased out to a nominal level—

Order. If the hon. Member goes down that road, he will clearly be out of order.

I should have been happy to respond to that point, but I shall bear in mind your ruling, Mr. Armstrong.

It may help the Committee if I responded—

On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I trust that you will allow us to proceed, because this is clearly a blatant example of cheap electioneering by those—

Order. That is not a point of order for me.

It may help the Committee —[Interruption.] I thought that the alliance was anxious to get on with the debate. The Labour party is certainly anxious to debate the increase in petrol tax and the abolition of capital transfer tax on gifts.

I sat on many when the hon. Gentleman was not a Member.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will study the debate more closely and attend more frequently.

Like the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth), I have tabled an amendment to clause 2, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman and his alliance colleagues, I feel that my amendment is so important that I am prepared to stay, no matter how late the debate goes. Alliance Members merely want to dash off home.

I should like to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). Last week, during Scottish Question Time, we had exchanges with Scottish Office Ministers about the price of petrol. Because I represent a highlands and islands constituency, the matter is obviously of considerable importance to me. I was therefore extremely pleased that my alliance colleagues took the opportunity this afternoon to table an amendment on petrol prices and so enable us to have a debate during which I could express some of the genuine concerns in that part of the United Kingdom.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that we shall debate clause 2 when the alliance allows us to proceed with the business? We shall deal with capital transfer tax, and then petrol tax. The alliance seems to be concerned about the petrol tax, and I am delighted to note that, because last year when we debated the petrol tax I did not notice alliance Members in either Division Lobby. They did not vote for the Government, or against them. It seems that this year they have decided that this is the most important political issue of the moment. It is certainly extremely important. It was important to the Labour party last year, as it is this year. It seems that it is important to the alliance only this year. I can only conclude that there is something different about this year. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that tomorrow there will be by-elections and there were none at this time last year.