If I had known that this would be such a wide-ranging debate covering almost every aspect of matters falling under the ambit of the EC, I might have been able to arrange for my hon. Friend who succeeded me as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to have the pleasure of attending the House to pull together all the multifarious strands. That would have enabled a wider view to be taken than my narrow responsibilities allow and would also have enabled me to get a little more sleep. But such is life.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has brought an important matter before the House. He has taken his subject in its widest sense— the cost of EC membership to the United Kingdom. He has not adverted to or expatiated on the benefits of membership of the EC, but that is perfectly proper. However, it is always worth remembering that there are two sides to every balance sheet and he has given us only one. He has provided an account which I think it is fair to say is not impartial. He has distinct and definite views on the subject and they happen to be very different from those expounded by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). But that is a matter for them to resolve between themselves.

The Government are committed to membership of the European Community and to making it a success. That does not mean, as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seems to believe, that we should roll over and agree to everything proposed by Brussels to appear co-operative, decent, friendly and cuddly. Life is not like that. Proposals are made, we assess our broader interest and argue for it. The fact that sometimes we do so robustly shows that we are committed to membership of the Community.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South cast his net wide and referred at length to our balance of trade with the rest of the European Community. I shall not deal in detail with what he said— this is the last refuge perhaps not of the scoundrel but of Ministers in the middle of the night—as it does not fall within my responsibilities.

The performance of a country's industries in the world marketplace depends on how well they compete. In some circumstances, competition may not be fair, but the European Community has mechanisms to remedy distortions in competition. There are similar mechanisms in the GATT, which is one reason why we are so adamant that it must be improved and enhanced. We are as determined as anyone that it should be successful. An unsuccessful conclusion would strike a savage blow at the economies of the third world. The best service that we can provide is a free and open market for the goods that they are able to produce. The benefits that accrue to their economies from such market access will always vastly outweigh the benefits of direct financial aid. We should never forget that lesson.

The hon. Member for Bradford, South mentioned the effects of our membership of the exchange rate mechanism. I am not surprised that he is not enthusiastic about our membership, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury who thinks that membership is a good idea at any time, under any conditions and in any circumstances. The Government believed that we should join when the time and conditions were right. Subsequent events have shown that we joined at the right time and at the right rate.