asked the Sectetary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last attended the European Economic Community Council of Ministers; and what subjects were considered.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), and I attended the Foreign Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 19 and 20 October. The main points on the agenda were the future financing of the Community; a proposed regulation laying down maximum permitted levels of radoactivity in foodstuffs after a nuclear accident; a draft Commission paper for the GATT negotiations on agriculture; and a proposal for a trade and economic co-operation agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council. The protocol to the association agreement between the European Communities and Cyprus, providing for transition to customs union, was signed on 19 October.

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether any aspects of European-South African relationships were considered at the meeting, and whether the other member states hold the continuing policies and practices of South Africa in the same regard as seems to be revealed by the recent extreme and rather provocative utterances of the Prime Minister?

There was no discussion of South Africa in the Council meeting, but everyone, as far as I know, in this House and throughout the Commonwealth and the Community is of exactly the same view: that apartheid is an intolerable system and that it must go as soon as possible.

Is it not clear from every successive crisis, whether in the Persian Gulf or the world's stock markets, that the need for improved action and coordination within the European Community is now very urgent indeed?

Yes, I think that the whole development of world events underlines the importance of increasingly effective European unity on political as well as economic matters.

During the meeting in Luxembourg, did the Foreign Secretary have a separate meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister, and did the latter raise any doubts about the implementation of the promised extradition treaty by 1 December? If so, what excuses were given?

I had no separate meeting with the Irish Foreign Minister during the Luxembourg meeting, but it is, of course, well known that we attach importance to the implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there can be no question of giving more money to the European Community while its budget remains out of control, and that if the budget is brought under control the Community will have no need for more money?

My hon. Friend will recall that express provision was made at Fontainebleau for the possibility of an increase in own resources, and that is one of the matters under consideration in the context of the immensely important aim, to which my hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention, of achieving effective, binding budgetary discipline, which is associated with the need to achieve some extremely difficult conclusions on the control of agricultural policy.

Will the Foreign Secretary seek to defend before his colleagues in Europe the Prime Minister's protection in Vancouver of the apartheid regime, to the point where it became clear that, by her reckless insensitivity, she had destroyed at a stroke much of the patient bridge-building in South African relations that the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues at the Foreign Office have been attempting?

The Government's position in relation to South Africa and the need for the removal of apartheid as quickly as possible is not in doubt and I have no need to defend that in the European Community or anywhere else.

"I attended the Foreign Affairs Councils which took place in Brussels on 14–15 September and in Luxembourg on 19–20 October, accompanied by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker).

on both occasions the Council continued its negotiations on the reform of Community spending. There is now widespread agreement on the need to strengthen control of agricultural expenditure through the introduction of budget stabilisers. I made it clear that the principle of stabilisers would have to be translated into specific quantified decisions in order to ensure binding control. That is a condition for success in the overall negotiation. The Council will hold a further discussion at its next meeting on 23–24 November.

The Council also discussed the proposal for a Council regulation laying down maximum permitted levels of radioactivity in foodstuffs after a nuclear accident, and decided that further work should be carried out by officials with a view to reaching agreement before 31 October. It agreed the text of a Council decision on a Community system for rapid notification in the case of a nuclear accident agreement was also reached in principle that the Community should accede to the Vienna convention on early notification in the case of a nuclear accident.

The Council discussed trade relations between the Community and a number of third countries. In September it gave strong support to the Commission's determination to insist, in discussions with the Government of South Korea, on the removal of discrimination against EC companies in South Korean intellectual property practices. It also reaffirmed its continuing concern on possible protectionist legislation in the United States.

In October the Council agreed that the Commission should continue its efforts to find a solution to the dispute with the US over the EC's ban on hormone-treated meat. It also discussed GATT article XXIV. 6 negotiations with Japan, Canada and Argentina; it agreed that the Commission should continue negotiations with Japan; endorsed the Commission's intention to seek binding GATT arbitration in the dispute with Canadians; and approved the agreement reached in the negotiations with Argentina.

The Council continued its discussion of the Community's contribution to the multilateral trade negotiations in the Uruguay round. In September it discussed a draft mandate for the negotiations on tropical products, which has since been approved and tabled in the GATT. In October the Council agreed to the Commission presenting in the GATT on 26 October a paper for its negotiations on agriculture.

The Council reached agreement on three sectors in the 1988 generalised scheme of preferences, and instructed officials to continue their discussions on the fourth, textiles. It also discussed the Commission's proposal for a trade and economic co-operation agreement between the Community and the Gulf Co-operation Council.

The Council discussed the Community's position on export credits for ships in preparation for an OECD meeting on shipbuilding later this month.

The Council agreed, by a qualified majority, to a Commission proposal for a reduction in the crisis levy which reduces Community staff pay.

The protocol to the association agreement between the European Communities and Cyprus providing for transition to customs union between the Community and Cyprus was signed on 19 October. At the signature the presidency made it clear that the provisions of the protocol applied to the whole population of Cyprus. The technical protocol to the association agreement covering trade between Cyprus on the one hand and Spain and Portugal, following those countries' accession to the Community, was also signed.

In Political Co-operation, Ministers adopted a statement on 14 September about the Israeli policy of establishing settlements in the occupied territories. The text of this statement has been placed in the Library of the House."

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

My right hon. and learned Friend and I will continue to press our ideas for legally binding controls on Community expenditure, including stabilising mechanisms for agricultural commodities.

Will my right hon. Friend impress on all her colleagues in the Government that one of the main stumbling blocks to the development of the Community as an economic force is Britain's failure to join the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS?

I think my hon. Friend already knows that I shall use my best endeavours to convince my colleagues of what we believe to be right and in the best interests of the United Kingdom. A decision on whether to join the exchange rate mechanism is under regular review by the Government, and my hon. Friend will recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said many times that he will take the decision to join that mechanism when the time is right.

The Minister mentioned budgetary discipline. Will she confirm that the European Council meeting in Copenhagen will be a treaty meeting and, therefore, de jure, and that decisions taken by the Heads of Governments on that and other topics on documents presented by the Commission will commit this country? Irrespective of that, will she agree that the matters that will he brought up at Copenhagen should be thoroughly debated in the House well before 4 December?

The Copenhagen meeting of leaders of European Community countries will be no different from any other European Council meeting. We shall proceed exactly as we have previously under the Single European Act, which now binds us all together.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the United Kingdom is fully committed to the development of the Community, which certainly needs such a commitment by all members states after a number of lean years, not least because the Federal Republic of Germany will have the next presidency, when it will be presenting new ideas for the development of institutions and the further use of qualified majority voting?

My hon Friend knows well that Britain is fully committed to the development of the Community, but before we can develop the Community we must have secured full, legally-binding control of expenditure. That is why we have always put and will certainly put at the head of the discussions in Copenhagen the need to establish stabilisers for all foods and the need to establish budgetary discipline on non-obligatory as well as on obligatory future spending. We are working for those things, and when they are in place we can go on to discuss the further development that we all surely want to see.

Is the Minister aware that the very wild fluctuations that occurred in world markets reveal a great lack of confidence in the Western economies? Is she also aware that the damage that could be done to the British economy as a by-product of, for example, American policy makes it absolutely essential that we should not join the EMS and dismantle one of our remaining defences which it may be necessary for us to use to protect our own economy from the gambling that is taking place in the world's stock markets?

I find it completely impossible to follow the right hon Gentleman's logic. He should remember that there is no doubt about the underlying strength of the United Kingdom economy. This year we have annual growth of 4 per cent. and we are in our seventh successive year of steady growth. Industrial production is at its highest ever level. Markets have greatly over-reacted and we must wait for them to settle. Thankfully, they have certainly seemed steadier over the last few hours. Even at its lowest point yesterday the stock market was above its January 1987 level. Scaremongering and rumour-mongering do a great deal more harm to Britain than does looking at the realities of the market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress in current arms control and disarmament conferences.

Prospects for a United States/ Soviet agreement on intermediate nuclear force missiles are encouraging. A number of key issues, including verification, remain to be resolved. We are participating in talks in Vienna to agree the framework for negotiations on conventional stability covering the Atlantic to the Urals. Negotiations on chemical weapons have made progress, but considerable complexities remain.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that statement. Can he say what part the United Kingdom Government have played, in encouraging the talks and co-operating in the discussions that have led to the successful INF agreement? Does he agree that for further successful negotiations in those various areas there must be confidence on both sides about the verification procedures?

In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I can tell him that the Government have consistently sought to improve the prospects of success in our series of contacts with the Soviet Union and the United States, going back to the period of four years ago when no contact whatever was taking place. From that time we have pressed the Soviet Union very hard on the need to come to the bargaining table, and we have helped the negotiations overcome the series of obstacles erected by the Soviet Union against their success. My hon. Friend is right to remind the House that an essential part of an agreement must be effective verification. As we shall hear in the debate tomorrow, that will involve Soviet inspections of INF missile deployment sites in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom is willing to play a full part in bringing about agreement on those essential features.

Does the Secretary of State not agree that in the next and perhaps decisive phase of arms control negotiations both sides will need to demonstrate conclusively that sufficient political will exists to ensure that a serious disarmament process is here to stay? Will he tell the House what confidence-building measures he is considering? Will he put to our NATO allies the need for them to consider making available help for Soviet infrastructure and agricultural technology?

I do not see the need for those proposals in this context. Of course, it is important for both sides to be seeking to develop confidence in the other. If these negotiations are to succeed they must be approached with a sense of realism and vigilance and with an open mind. In that spirit I had a meeting this week with my American opposite number, Mr. Shultz, who will go to Moscow later this week. I am quite certain that both he and the other side recognise the need to establish a firm foundation of confidence if further success is to be achieved.

If we are to have an agreement for the abolition of intermediate range nuclear forces, is it not now even more important than before that we should also have an agreement to ban chemical weapons, in which the Soviet Union has enormous superiority and in the offensive use of which its forces are trained?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The greater the progress that is made in achieving arms control agreements in respect of nuclear weapons, the more urgent it becomes to achieve progress with regard to conventional as well as chemical weapons. My right hon. Friend is right to remind the House that the Soviet Union is capable of waging chemical warfare on a large scale. It has substantial stockpiles of chemical weapons and its troops are comprehensively equipped and trained to operate in a chemically contaminated environment.

Why, when the Americans and Soviet Governments are about to sign a historic agreement eliminating a whole generation of nuclear weapons, are this Government still desperately scratching around with the French to invent a new nuclear system? When President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev are agreed on the urgent necessity to reduce nuclear stockpiles, does the Prime Minister not look increasingly belligerent, antiquated and pathetic as she tells the world that nuclear disarmament has gone far enough? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with her?

It is the hon. Gentleman who looks increasingly antiquated and pathetic as a result of the style of questions that he asks on this subject. The point made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is precisely the point that I have made this afternoon. If we are to make further progress on nuclear arms control, it is of the greatest importance to make headway on conventional and chemical weapons as well.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the policies advocated by so many Opposition Members were adopted, namely, a unilateralist approach, those policies would be of no help for progress in the various fora that my right hon. and learned Friend has just described to the House?

My hon. and learned Friend is precisely correct. The Labour party would have opposed the entire strategy of the dual track approach and the deployment of weapons on the Western side in Europe—without which it would not have been possible to achieve the breakthrough to secure the removal of that category of weapons altogether.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on the current human rights situation in Guatemala.

Her Majesty's ambassador regularly reports on the human rights situation in Guatemala. We believe it has improved since President Cerezo took office in January 1986. The United Nations Human Rights Commission shares our view.

If that is the Government's response, how does the Minister assess the reports that there are still about 100 murders every month in Guatemala, and that figure does not include abductions that are not reported? Many of those are widely believed to have occurred at the behest and with the connivance of the agencies of the state, if not of the President himself. On that basis, what representations is the Minister making to the new Guatemalan ambassador about the importance that Britain attaches to an improvement in human rights in Guatemala, and what pressures are Her Majesty's Government putting on the United States Government, who have a direct responsibility for the situation in Guatemala?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State raised the question of human rights in New York when he met President Cerezo. I discussed the matter with Minister Sosa yesterday in the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman asked what evidence we have for forming our view. We rely on our own reporting and that of the United Nations. A United Nations human rights expert visited Guatemala in September this year and expressed satisfaction with the progress made by Guatemala with regard to human rights. We keep the matter closely under review, and the Guatemalan Government are aware of our concern.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the main cause of the atrocities in Guatemala is the continued insurgency of Marxist terrorists within that country? Is it not important for the stability and security of the region that British forces remain in Belize alongside Guatemala?

It is certainly true that the worst human rights abuses happened before the present Government took office. We have no plans to make any changes with regard to forces in Belize.

While we are on the subject of Central America, will the Minister confirm——

No.

Order. We are on the subject of Guatemala.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to meet his Chinese counterpart to discuss Sino-British relations; and if he will make a statement.

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

I met the Chinese Foreign Minister again at the United Nations General Assembly in New York last month. I very much hope that he will be able to take up my invitation to visit the United Kingdom next year.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that 37 years of Chinese occupation of Tibet, culminating in the recent riots and deaths, far from being an internal matter, constitute a serious threat to the good relations between China and Britain and between China and the rest of the free world? Will my right hon. and learned Friend seek an early meeting with his Chinese counterpart to express the concern of the whole House about events in Tibet and to urge on him the Dalai Lama's five-point plan for peace, neutrality and autonomy?

Obviously the House will regret the loss of life that has taken place in recent disturbances in Tibet. I believe that the best way in which we can help the Tibetan people is by encouraging the Chinese Government to maintain their programme of economic and political reform. We shall certainly seek suitable opportunities of doing that and ensure that the Chinese Government are aware of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend on behalf of the British people.

Bearing in mind the considerable trading opportunities that are arising with the People's Republic of China, will my right hon. and learned Friend state what additional steps are being taken to further our trade with that country?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the scale of growing trade with the People's Republic of China. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is in China now, and he is only the latest in a series of Ministers and hon. Members to visit the country. We shall continue to expand contacts of that sort in the confident expectation of a further improvement in relations and expansion of trade.

Will the Secretary of State clarify his position on Tibet? Does he approve of the policy that is being pursued by the Chinese Government, and has he a view on it? If he has a view, has he conveyed it to the Chinese Government? If he has conveyed it, have they responded?

As I said in my earlier reply, the Chinese Government are aware of the concern of British people about events in Tibet. We shall continue to seek opportunities of bringing that concern to their attention. I repeat that the best way of trying to secure improvements there is by encouraging the Chinese Government to continue with their programme of economic and political reforms in the region.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that the essential negotiations between the People's Republic of China and the Crown colony of Hong Kong are proceeding reasonably and as fast as he would expect?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that relations between the United Kingdom Government and the People's Republic of China in respect of Hong Kong rest upon the joint declaration that was concluded in 1984. Both sides have been and are working closely together to implement the declaration. We have agreed some important arrangements to give effect to it and I am sure that that positive co-operation will continue. Both sides are committed to full and faithful implementation of the agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European Economic Community counterparts about Government action in support of the Contadora peace process.

The Central American peace process was discussed at the informal meeting of European Community Foreign Ministers on 3–4 October, and at the meeting of Foreign Ministers of the Twelve and regional Governments on 23 September. My right hon. and learned Friend attended both meetings.

Will the Minister tell the House whether his Government have sent a message of congratulation to President Arias on his award of the Nobel peace prize?

Yes, indeed. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a message congratulating President Arias on his award, and repeating our confidence and congratulations with regard to the Guatemala accord.

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the refusal of the Sandinistas to negotiate with the Contras, despite the Contras' expressed wish to negotiate with the Government of Nicaragua?

I read that President Ortega was reported to have said that if Contra leaders returned to Managua for peace talks they would be arrested. That hardly seems to be in the spirit of the Guatemala accord.

Does the Minister not agree that now is the time for the British Government to make a clear and unequivocal declaration that they condemn American policy in the region, that they support the peace process now going on there, and that, as a measure of good faith, they will restore British aid to the people of Nicaragua to enable them to get out of the appalling poverty into which the war conducted by the United States has forced them?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously been having a long holiday away from the newspapers. Together with our European Community partners, we issued a statement on 13 August supporting the accord.

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the maintenance of stability in Central America and the Caribbean region is of importance to Her Majesty's Government? That being so, is it not strange that this year we should be giving considerably more civil aid to the Marxist Government of Mozambique, with which we have no colonial link?

Order. That is very wide of this question.

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

We shall continue to look for ways of restoring more normal relations with Argentina, while upholding our commitments to the Falkland islanders.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that, despite the fact that Argentina invaded the Falklands arid now will not officially recognise the end of the hostilities, Her Majesty's Government are doing all that they can to normalise relations with Argentina and to try to return to the diplomatic position pre-1982?

I can, indeed, give my hon. Friend and the House those assurances. Since 1982 we have taken a series of initiatives to restore more normal relations. They include the lifting of all financial and trade restrictions, proposals for co-operation on fisheries conservation arid a number of other measures.

Do Ministers believe that it would be wise, having regard to both the British national interest and the interests of democracy throughout Latin America, to be helpful to President Alfonsin, given his domestic arid political difficulties?

As my previous answer made clear, we seek more normal relations with the new Argentina.

Surely the Minister will acknowledge that the recent elections in Argentina show the increasing strength of democracy in that country. Will he confirm that the indirect talks with Argentina on fishing that have taken place under the auspices of the United States have been useful? Is it not time to take up the suggestion made by Councillor Blake of the Falkland Islands at the United Nations and start direct talks with the Government of Argentina about all aspects of fishing in the south Atlantic?

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, there have been some exchanges with the Argentines. Those exchanges have focused exclusively on the fisheries policy and, in particular, the conservation zone. Our aim, which is well known, is the co-ordination of fisheries management in the interests of conservation, and the avoidance of incidents. We naturally hope that something will come of those exchanges.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met the President of the European Commission.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I met Monsieur Delors at the Foreign Affairs Council, which ended yesterday.

Does the Minister agree that the achievement of the internal market has, for very good political and social reasons, to be balanced by an increase in the resources of the European regional fund? Did she convey that view to Jacques Delors, bearing in mind that large areas of Scotland, Wales and the north-east of England are likely to lose all European regional development fund assistance if there is no increase in resources for the regional fund?

I did not speak to President Delors yesterday about that particular issue, but, as I said in answer to a previous question, I think the hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have to put the finances of the European Community in order before we can start to talk about increasing the structural funds. However, I think he will be glad to know that we consider that it is early days yet to condemn what the Commission may put forward in terms of lists of regions. That has not yet occurred. We shall argue strongly that the most assisted areas in the United Kingdom should be eligible for support under the category that is concerned with industrially declining regions. The hon. Gentleman may or may not be glad to know that I have already discussed this matter, particularly the highlands and islands, with the member of the European Community who is responsible for that area.

Did my right hon. Friend make it clear to the President that the current Commission proposals for the harmonisation of VAT on food, construction and other zero-rated items remain completely unacceptable to the United Kingdom?

I do not think that there is any doubt in the European Community that the proposals to do away with zero rating will not be accepted by the United Kingdom. I remind my hon. Friend that decisions on all Community tax measures require unanimity, and, because they require unanimity, I am confident that we shall not accept any proposals that restrict our ability to use zero rating. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, we shall continue the zero rating of food. We have no intention of putting VAT on electricity, gas, fuel and children's clothes and shoes. That would never he agreed by this House.

When the Minister met the President the other day, did she make it clear to him that her views on the African National Council differ radically from the views of the Boers' friend at No. 10?

The hon. Gentleman and the whole House know that we are opposed to violence, wherever that may arise. There is no difference in attitude. We believe in trying to establish a dialogue between all the peoples of South Africa. What we do to that end must be in the sense of bringing about the speediest possible end to apartheid. There is certainly no difference of opinion, and we shall continue with our wide range of contacts.

Did my right hon. Friend point out to the President that over 50 per cent. of British exports now go to our partners in the Community, which fact underlines the irresponsibility of those in the Labour party who wish to take us out of this job-creating Community?

What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right. Many of our exports now go to the internal Community and much of our economy is tightly bound up with the European Community. It is little surprise, therefore, that eventually, after all these years, the Labour party is beginning to change its tune, however grudgingly. It is in the interests of the country at large, and it is also in the interests of Europe, that we should continue to export widely within the free internal market. That is what we are working for in 1992.

Since the right hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, denounces violence from whatever quarter it comes, will she denounce the violence of the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua, and will she advise them to lay down their arms so that they can negotiate under the terms of the Guatemala accord?

Order. The Question must be in the context of the European Community.

I do not know what relationship that subject has to these questions. We shall continue to work for a peaceful solution in Central America.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made towards reaching agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty.

We remain committed to seeking progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. We believe, however, that it would be premature for negotiations to begin until progress is made on outstanding problems, notably verification. We therefore welcome, as a first step, recent indications of United States and Soviet readiness to seek the improvements in verification necessary to enable the threshold test ban treaty and peaceful nuclear explosions treaty to be ratified.

Is the Minister aware that the negative stance of the Government in this matter is not only in contrast to that of the previous Conservative Government—which was a signatory to the 1963 partial test ban treaty—but in contrast to the changing attitude of the two super powers? Surely he must be aware that the statements that the Government keep making about verification are not supported by seismologists, other than those within the pay of the British Government. Furthermore, is it not time for a British initiative, bearing in mind what the Minister said about the talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, so that we can move, if not to a test ban treaty, to a lower threshold test ban treaty or to some limitation on the number of nuclear tests that are carried out each year?

The Government's approach to these matters is essentially practical. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we are lagging behind the United States and the Soviet Union, but I must inform him that the two treaties that were signed but not ratified, which are now to be the subject of fresh discussion between the United States and the Soviet Union, impose limits on nuclear testing, within which we keep.

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

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans for such a visit.

I remind the Minister that in 1977 a United Kingdom-Cuban agreement was signed in the interests of technical and scientific co-operation. It was signed by the Cuban Minister, Mr. Hector Llompart, and the then British ambassador, Mr. Jackson. Since that time nothing whatever has happened, despite repeated representations from the Cuban Government. Do the Government intend to honour this agreement, or is it just a worthless pieces of paper?

We obviously do not take lightly any agreements that we enter into. I have yet to meet the new Cuban ambassador to the United Kingdom, and this matter may be something that he would want to raise with me at that time.

If my hon. Friend meets the new Cuban ambassador, will he tell him, clearly and unequivocally, that it is imperative that Cuba withdraws its forces from Angola if there is to be peace in that country and, furthermore, if a satisfactory settlement is to be achieved in south-west Africa, Namibia?

My hon. Friend need have no fears. I shall certainly make those points to the Cuban ambassador.

If' the Minister meets the Cuban ambassador, will he support the greater flexibility in the stance of the Angolan Government, which is supported by the Cuban Government, in their approach to Angola, in seeking to resolve this matter? Would that not be a more helpful attitude, than the one expressed by the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)?

The most helpful attitude that the Cubans could take would be to withdraw their troops.

Given the repeated attempts by the Cuban Government to subvert many former British dependencies in the Caribbean in recent years, and its avowed intention to continue doing so, will my hon. Friend consult his colleagues to see whether we can reconsider the level of British aid that is given to the former British dependencies in that region? Is it not strange that the combined total of aid for all these former British dependencies is less that the amount that we are giving to the Marxist Government of Mozambique, with which we have no colonial links?

We give a considerable amount of aid to the Caribbean dependent territories. For instance, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we give over £5 million per year to the Turks and Caicos Islands.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to take any new initiatives with regard to the Falkland Islands.

We continue to look for ways of restoring more normal relations with Argentina, while upholding our commitments to the Falkland islanders.

Is the Minister aware of the Defence Select Committee report published shortly before the recess, which says that our Falklands commitment represents a diversion of assets from our primary task in NATO? Should that not be a spur to the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend to seek further talks with the Argentines and an open-ended commitment to talks? Is this not another case like South Africa, where the Prime Minister's obstinacy stands in the way of the Secretary of State making a worthwhile initiative?

I have already made it clear to the House that exchanges on the subject of fisheries are taking place. We have no intention of entering any discussions that involve the transfer of sovereignty.

Does my hon. Friend accept that freedom, democracy and the right to self-determination are vital priorities for the British Government? Will they therefore always consult the Falkland islanders or their representatives before any decision is taken? Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether some Opposition Members like it or not, the majority view in the Falklands must be of paramount importance?

We have always made it clear that we defend the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination.

Is the Minister prepared to recommend that the Government of Argentina be given the right to interfere in the Falkland Islands through an Anglo-Argentine agreement similar to the Anglo-Irish Agreement, through which the Government and the Irish Republic interfere in Northern Ireland affairs?

There is no such similarity, so the question cannot be answered.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress made in efforts to contain the European Community budget.

We have got agreement that CAP reform and budget discipline are the key issues in the current negotiations. Stabilisers, backed by an effective guideline for expenditure, have to be the main instrument of reform. Our task now is to translate that principle into hard practice—into the detailed agreement that is an absolute condition of success in the overall negotiation

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is it not a simple fact that the Community budget will not be controlled until the Community firmly controls farm costs, commodity by commodity, so as to limit spending? We all know what needs to be done. Is it not a question of whether the Community can now find the resolve to do it?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Control of farm policy costs is absolutely essential for the achievement of effective budgetary discipline in the Community. We have achieved recognition of that principle. We have also achieved recognition by the Commission — and more widely — that stabilisers in respect of each commodity—commodity by commodity — are an essential means of bringing agricultural spending under effective control. What is now needed is the mobilisation of a common, collective will to put those principles firmly into practice.

Since Britain's membership fee for the Common Market this year is £1·3 billion, will the Foreign Secretary assure the House that the Government will not increase their contribution to bail out the Common Market? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman repudiate completely Commissioner Cockfield's proposal to increase and widen VAT to cover food and children's clothing? Will he make it clear that it is not acceptable to the House and that we shall use the veto?

We have made it plain that any changes in Community own resources can be considered only in the context of a settlement that deals effectively and completely with the matters that we have already discussed this afternoon.

Did the House not agree to the last increases in Community resources on the clear assurances from the Government Front Bench that there would be effective budgetary discipline within the Community? Therefore, is not my right hon. and learned Friend's earlier statement this afternoon that we might have another increase to achieve that same objective very worrying?

My right hon. Friend's interest in this subject is well justified and he is an effective reminder of the importance of the matter. He should take notice of the fact that, as a result of the agreement arrived at in 1984, the agricultural savings now arrived at total some £10 billion. We have now got measures in place controlling milk and beef—milk production is down by 4 per cent. and butter production down by 13 per cent.—and there has been a substantial cut in beef support prices. What is necessary — my right hon. Friend is entirely right to remind us of it—is to build on the foundations laid at Fontainebleau to ensure that comparable discipline applies to the rest of the agricultural programme.

Is not the truth of the matter that if this Government, along with the others in the Common Market, decided to privatise the EEC there would be no buyers and they would not get a price?

I believe that as the European Community is an enterprise on such a large scale, the question does not arise.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to persuade the Soviet Government to permit further emigration by Soviet Jews.

We take every opportunity to put pressure on the Soviet Union about this matter. I last raised this in clear and forthright terms at the resumption of the CSCE meeting in Vienna on 22 September. I am glad to say that one of the four specific cases I raised, that of Ida Nudel, has since been successfully resolved. Mrs. Nudel, a prominent long-term Jewish refusenik, was granted permission to emigrate at the beginning of this month and has now arrived in Israel.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the considerable efforts of this Government for the release of Soviet Jews are greatly appreciated by them and by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Does he also agree that the recent increase in Soviet Jewish emigration is indeed a most welcome departure? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, if the Soviet Union totally honours its commitment to human rights in the Helsinki accord, that will only strengthen our confidence that it will totally honour any commitments it may enter into regarding arms reduction and the maintenance of world peace?

I am glad that these long-standing cases are beginning to be resolved. There was the case of Sasha Blonsky, with which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) were prominently involved, together with other Members of the House. Up to September the figures show that some 5,397 Jewish citizens of the Soviet Union have been allowed to emigrate, and that is a larger figure than for the previous four years taken together. However, that figure still falls short of the 50,000 who were allowed out in 1979. In recent months the numbers have flattened off to a degree that should allow for no complacency.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the current state of relations between Austria and the United Kingdom.

Relations between the United Kingdom and Austria are friendly and reflect the common interests of our Governments and peoples.

Will Her Majesty's Government assure the House of their full co-operation in the inquiries that the Austrian Government have set up into the wartime activities of President Waldheim? In particular, will the Government now release the documents in the Public Record Office which they saw fit to refuse to release before and which specifically relate to the alleged involvement of President Waldheim's unit in the interrogation of British prisoners of war, some of whom were later sent for so-called Sonderbehandlung—which meant extermination in concentration camps—and whose whereabouts and deaths have never been confirmed?

I can answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's second question briefly — no, the documents will not be released. Let me say, firmly, that where there is evidence—I mean evidence and not allegations, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept — we shall co-operate, whether that be with the Austrians or with the United Nations War Crimes Commission. That we have always done, and that we shall continue to do.

As a democrat, does my right hon. Friend not welcome and support the result of free elections in any country and respect those thus elected?

Yes. That is what democracy is all about.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now review the decision to withdraw the United Kingdom from membership of UNESCO; and if he will make a statement.

We made it clear when we withdrew from UNESCO that we would require evidence of fundamental and far-reaching reforms before reconsidering our position. We welcome the prospect of the election of a new director-general, but our fundamental concern remains UNESCO's programmes and administration. We shall continue to keep an open mind and monitor developments carefully.

Would it not be a good idea if the Foreign Secretary were to invite Senor Mayor, the director-general of UNESCO, to come to this country for discussions with a view to Britain rejoining that organisation? Should not the Foreign Secretary stop pretending that he agrees with the politics of the new Right and the dreadful lead given by the United States State Department on that matter?

I am afraid that I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he appears to be woefully ignorant of the way in which UNESCO operates. The fact is that the programme of work for UNESCO over the next two years will be decided at its general conference, which is currently meeting. The proposals that have gone to the general conference were put forward by the previous director-general. We shall watch with considerable interest to see whether changes are made in the programme recommendations and how any programme recommendations by the general conference are implemented over the coming months.

Will Her Majesty's Government consider strengthening our observer status at UNESCO in view of the appointment of Senor Mayor?

As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, we have a considerable presence in the observer section, which is based in our Paris embassy. However, had UNESCO been prepared to co-operate more freely with that observer section we might have been able to get further in our efforts to observe what was going on.

Does the Minister not accept that there is an excellent new director-general designate and that he has said he is committed to improving the efficiency of the organisation and carrying out the sort of reforms that the British Government have outlined? He has said that a priority is to get Britain and the United States back into UNESCO. Surely the Government should give him a message of encouragement and an idea of the situation in which our membership would be reconsidered. Surely it is better to support and encourage him from inside, rather than shouting from the touchline.

As we have made clear on several occasions, UNESCO is not about personalities; it is about the programmes that it carries out. Of course we welcome the announcement of the appointment of Dr. Mayor, which still has to be confirmed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, on 7 November. However, Dr. Mayor faces a difficult task of administrative reform and the implementation of programmes. We shall watch carefully how he proceeds in his job.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to visit the Soviet Union; and what subjects he will be discussing.

I shall be taking up Mr. Shevardnadze's invitation as soon as mutually convenient dates can be agreed. I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects, including arms control, human rights, regional and bilateral issues.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. I also thank him for raising with Mr. Shevardnadze the matter of the P36. Is he aware that the discussions that he started on the repatriation, of that locomotive have tended to run into the ground since he stopped talking about it? When he makes his visit, can he find a couple of minutes to re-open the subject, as it is of interest to many people in this country?

My hon. Friend is energetic in his determination to safeguard locomotive rights. I shall bear that in mind. However, it will not be the most important item on my agenda with Mr. Shevardnadze.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware that it will be right to raise the issue of human rights when he visits the Soviet Union, because it is a subject of concern to us all? What would his response be if the Soviet leader turned round and said, "What about the attitudes adopted by your Prime Minister, and the wrecking and destructive attitude that she adopted at the Commonwealth conference?" Are not the rights of the black majority in South Africa of equal importance to human rights in the Soviet Union?

I will tell Mr. Shevardnadze, as I so often have to tell the House about the hon. Gentleman, that he is talking absolute nonsense. In fact, I will tell him equally plainly that we are totally at one in our determination to bring about an end to apartheid as soon as possible. That is part of the consistency with which we press the case for reform within the Soviet Union.

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

Our relations with Sri Lanka continue to be close and friendly.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that he will respond to any legitimate request from the Government of Sri Lanka for advice and assistance in its battle against terrorism?

I think that the whole House will admire the personal and political courage that has been shown by the President of Sri Lanka over the past few months. We were able to help by responding to a request that he made when we supplied two detectives to look into the dastardly terrorist attack on the Sri Lankan Government, and we would look at other requests were they made.