asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about Rhodesia.

May I also add my words of grief about the death of Reggie Maudling? His loss will be felt in the affairs of Southern Africa to which he regularly contributed from a long and deep knowledge of the situation. We shall all miss his wise counsels and his contributions to such debates.

Although Members on both sides of the House have rightly deplored the killing of 59 people in the recent airliner incident, does my hon. Friend agree that Smith's public promise of retaliation can only escalate the Rhodesian war? Will he remind those Conservatives who are virtually encouraging a rebel like Smith to invade Zambia—a member of the Commonwealth—that such incitements may mean that in the resultant violence some of the blood may be on their hands?

I appreciate that the extension of the conflict and the response—if there is a response which could lead to further escalation of the violence—is one of the dangerous consequences of the act of barbarism that occurred yester- day. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) said yesterday that acts of provocation, from whichever quarter at this stage, could only make a settlement that much more difficult to achieve.

On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I add to your words, Mr. Speaker, and say what an immense sense of loss we feel in this House at the death of the Right Hon. Reginald Maudling? We feel that his death constitutes a grievous loss to our country, a very real loss to Parliament, a particular loss to the Conservative Party and, above all, a great loss to his family. I thank the Minister of State for his kind words.

I do not believe that we have received a formal invitation. We have had announcements that the internal settlement leaders in Salisbury would wish us to send observers. The Government have no plans to do so. We do not think that observers are any substitute for internationally-supervised free and fair elections, but of course it will be for the House to decide how it wishes to respond.

May I, on behalf of my colleagues, say how much we, too, miss both the wisdom and friendliness of Reggie Maudling in this House?

We shall endeavour to do so. Following the meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State Vance in Washington on 3 February, further approaches will be made to the parties in an effort to get agreement on such essential elements as the United Nations supervised elections and ceasefire. Such approaches are, by their very nature, undramatic and confidential, but we certainly shall pursue them.

What is democratic about consulting only whites about the kind of constitution in Rhodesia and the black population of Rhodesia simply has to accept what is laid down by the internal settlement? Until the people of Rhodesia are given a proper opportunity to decide freely for themselves their own future there will be no peace in Rhodesia.

I agree with my hon. Friend. Certainly the referendum cannot be a test of acceptability of any proposal. There must be a test of opinion of the whole of Rhodesia in conditions which allow free and fair elections to take place.

Does the Minister agree that the elections are designed to test whether the fifth principle has been observed? Does he realise that if the Government refuse to send observers they will appear once again to be discrediting the men of peace and favouring the men of violence?

That is not so. We have pointed out, rightly, that in the situation in Rhodesia at present, where 90 per cent. of the country is under martial law, where radio and the media are censored and where all parties are not allowed to participate in the internationally supervised elections, we do not believe that this is a basis for testing public opinion or acceptability in Rhodesia.

Order. We must move on. This matter comes up again.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British relations with Indonesia.

Relations with Indonesia remain good. The Indonesian Foreign Minister, Professor Mochtar, paid a successful visit to the United Kingdom as a guest of the Government, in November 1978. We attach much importance to our relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations, of which Indonesia is an influential member.

How does my hon. Friend justify the sale of another eight Hawk ground attack aircraft to a country with such an appalling record on human rights? Do the Government approve of the annexation of East Timor by force, in which—even according to Mr. Adam Marley—60,000 members of the population of that country were killed?

We have not sold ground attack aircraft to Indonesia. The question under discussion has been the sale of Hawk aircraft which are suitable only for training. On the question of East Timor, I agree on the general importance of the principle of self-determination. We voted in the Security Council two or three years ago in favour of the application of that principle to East Timor.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that Indonesia is a vital link in the defence of South-East Asia against further Communist advance? Does he also accept that there is tremendous trade potential for the United Kingdom in Indonesia? Will he on all occasions extend every courtesy to the Indonesians so that trade with that country, which is friendly to the West, can continue to increase?

It would be an insult to Indonesia to regard that country simply as a bulwark against Communism in that area. Indonesia is an important country in its own right and one with which we have very good relations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent action he has taken to support Dr. Waldheim's initiative for a solution in Cyprus.

The Government are keeping in close touch with Dr. Waldheim, the Cyprus parties, and other interested Governments, about progress towards a resumption of intercommunal negotiations. We have made clear our full support for Dr. Waldheim's efforts.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Greek Cypriots side has accepted without any reservations at all Dr. Waldheim's agenda, whereas the Turkish Cypriots have submitted reservations which have so far prevented the resumption of these talks? In these circumstances, does he really think it sensible for Britain to participate in the massive economic aid towards Turkey, because the Prime Minister said on his return from Guadeloupe that although there was no formal linkage he very much hoped that the Cyprus negotiations and the aid to Turkey would go hand in hand?

The United Kingdom Government, together with the Governments of the United States and Canada, have been closely following the prospects for restarting the negotiations. We are determined to do all that we can to assist in this matter and we have our own proposals available as a basis for detail in this respect. We must persevere in trying to get the parties together. I hope my hon. Friend will feel that the preservation of democracy in Turkey stands on its own merits as an issue worth our support.

Has my hon. Friend noticed the gross violation of human rights in Cyprus, both in the South and more clearly in the North? Does he realise that his and his right hon. Friends' stand on human rights—the speeches that they make and the books that they write—loses a little credibility when they stand idly aside and disregard the violations in Cyprus?

If that were true it would be a serious allegation. It is not true. We have done all that we can to support international efforts to resolve the humanitarian problems. We are now convinced that the best way of doing this will be in the context of a general settlement. In the meantime, we are sorry that the parties themselves have not yet been able to reach practical arrangements for investigating the breaches of human rights which concern us all.

Does the Minister recognise that there still exist the gravest and greatest difficulties for persons who have come over here as political refugees from Cyprus and who are expected to return now? Will he please think again about directing some of them to return home, as he has some of my constituents, who really could not possibly safely return at this time?

I am sure the hon. Lady will agree with what I said a moment ago. If people are to have the prospect of real security and peace in their homes in Cyprus, it underlines the urgency of achieving a general political settlement and the importance of us all doing all that we can to persuade the parties to come together and start working on Dr. Waldheim's proposals, supported by the more detailed ideas put forward by ourselves, the Americans and the Canadians.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made in obtaining the consent of the Zambian Government to the repatriation by British nationals of such bank balances as they may hold in that country.

My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Zambian Government are doing their best to speed up the grant of permission in these cases. But they are handicapped by the continuing scarcity of available foreign exchange. They are fully aware of the Government's concern about this matter.

Will the Minister confirm that a significant number of Britons have been recruited by the Zambian High Commission without it being made clear to them that they would not be able to bring home their savings? Will he see that any Britons thinking of going out there do not labour under any such illusion in future? Will he also recognise that Britons returning to this country, some in straitened circumstances, find it difficult to accept that they, as taxpayers, should be giving money to Zambia when their savings cannot be repatriated? Will he discuss the problem with his right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development?

I cannot confirm the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall make inquiries about it. I accept that it is important that people should realise the foreign exchange problems besetting Zambia and the problems of remitting money home. I also appreciate the hardships, because I deal with a large number of letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents. I also appreciate why people do not understand the support that we are giving, but if it were not for that support the situation would be that much worse. One aspect of the £20 million copper purchase arrangement that we had with Zambia was that the Zambians agreed to use part of that money to reduce the backlog of British individual's funds.

I recognise the difficulties of Zambia, but will the Minister convey to the Zambian Government that the chances of further investment in that country will be greatly enhanced by a resolution of the present problems?

I am sure that the Zambian Government fully appreciate that point. We shall press them again to see whether anything can be done to relieve the hardship caused by the delays and the consequential bad impression that they give.

Since thousands of British subjects and many British companies have their funds frozen in Zambia, and since the British Government have, through the provision of aid and assistance with the IMF loans to Zambia, facilitated the provision of foreign exchange to that country, does the Minister agree that there sould be a clear understanding with the Zambian Government that they should give the highest priority to the repatriation of those funds?

The Zambian authorities understand the genuine problems of hardship that have arisen as a result of the failure to allow remittances and the consequences for individuals and the impression created on people who would like to work in Zambia. As part of the recent £20 million copper agreement, we have reached agreement with the Zambian authorities that they will use part of that money to reduce the backlog of British individuals' funds.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will visit China.

My right hon. Friend is hoping to visit China before long, but dates have not yet been fixed.

Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Foreign Secretary goes to China he will find a country which is eagerly studying the English language and that I hope that we shall increasingly help the Chinese in that task? However, is he also aware that the study of Chinese in England is under grave threat, partly because of Government inaction? Is he aware that the Chinese language training facility at Cambridge University, where our foreign service officers receive their first year of training, is under economic pressure? Will my hon. Friend undertake to consult his colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade to make sure that the facility does not disappear because of lack of Government support?

Since my hon. Friend and I are perhaps the only two Members who have been students of Chinese, I share his concern. I was not fully aware of all the facts that he has given and I shall look into them. The Government are concerned to promote cultural relations with China and we have reached agreement in principle for a major exchange of students. We hope to receive about 1,000 Chinese students and are urgently pursuing discussions with the Chinese to enable that programme to take place.

Will the Secretary of State raise with the Chinese the question of the Harrier deal? Is the Minister aware that there is some concern that certain elements in the Government in London are dragging their feet and that the behaviour of the Secretary of State for Energy yesterday has caused many raised eyebrows, not only in the United Kingdom, but in China?

There is only one policy on this queston, and it is that of the Government as a whole. That policy was announced by the Prime Minister in the House last month. He said that we were ready in principle to undertake a sale of Harriers to China. Negotiations are taking place on the details of that agreement and some will be announced in due course.

Since China is still a Communist country, and since from 1949 the whole Tory Party would have bombed it to hell—and two-thirds of Labour Members would have done likewise—can my hon. Friend explain what has been the fundamental change that enables us to embrace those so-called wicked enemies of yesterday and to make friends with them today? Can he give a guarantee that, though today we are making changes in our approaches to China because of its so-called anti-Sovietism, we shall not change our attitude towards China if it once more becomes friends with the Soviet Union?

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the change in the attitude of some Conservative Members in a very short space of time is rather remarkable. The Government have always wanted to pursue a friendly policy towards China.

And to sell arms.

It is only recently that there has been any discussion about the sale of arms. We have made clear that we are interested only in the sale of defensive arms. Since China has expressed interest in the matter, we have decided that we are perfectly justified in selling defensive arms and we do not believe that that need have any effect on our relations with other countries, to which we continue to attach great importance.

How can the Government have a credible policy towards China if the Secretary of State for Energy is allowed to contradict, in almost every newspaper today, the Government's declared policy on the sale of Harriers? Does the Minister agree that if Mr. Attlee had still been Prime Minister the resignation of the Secretary of State for Energy would have been obtained by lunchtime today?

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is referring to a private meeting which took place yesterday and what was said there. I cannot take respon- sibility for press reports which are obviously based on conjecture of what may have happened at that meeting.

rose—

Order. If Mr. Attlee were still Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown would not have allowed the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd).

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has plans to visit the Sultanate of Oman or any other part of the Persian Gulf.

Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is attending on Her Majesty the Queen while she visits Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. I will visit Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, also in attendance on the Queen next week.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that while the Foreign Secretary is in those parts he will make every possible effort to rectify the serious lack of confidence in the West and its capacity to act in the defence of that area? Does he agree that we shall not get far towards that end unless there is an effective military alliance to cover that part of the world?

I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that the lesson of recent history is that real security and stability must rest on arrangements that make political sense in the context of the countries concerned. My right hon. Friend and I will, of course, be discussing with Ministers in the Gulf the mutual problems in that area. Obviously, the need for stability in the Gulf is of profound importance for us.

Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome the recognition which the Government have extended to the new regime in Iran? Can he tell the House whether his right hon. Friend will have any contact with that new regime? Ought not we at least to congratulate the new regime on ridding itself of one of the most repellent secret police forces in the world? Has any estimate been made yet of the degree of shortfall in oil supplies coming from the Gulf area as a result of what has taken place?

Evaluations of oil supplies are being made as of now about the implications of what has happened. Of course, there will be serious consequences for world supplies. That cannot be denied. As for the general position on relationships, I am glad to tell the House that our ambassador already is establishing good working relationships with the new Government in Iran.

Will the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as a result of their discussions in the Gulf countries, undertake to open discussions with the United States Government to see what action may be required by the NATO Alliance to provide greater stability in an area of the world where recent events, especially those in Iran, have gone a very long way towards destabilisation?

I do not think that we see NATO as fulfilling, as NATO, a function in the Gulf. However, we believe that because of the inescapability of international interdependence in these matters we must all face the need to support those with responsibility locally for stability in the Gulf in any way that makes sense.

Do not recent events in Iran demonstrate that autocracy and dictatorship have no future in the area against the demands of the people for democracy and elementary rights? In the circumstances, should not we make it clear to the Sultan of Oman that, unless he is prepared to introduce democracy into his country, in the long run his regime can no more survive than did that of the Shah?

What everyone in the House will recognise is that recent events have made it clear that, in any part of the world, eventually the Government depend upon consent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear!"] As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making plain constantly in the context of domestic issues, that applies in this country as well. I understand that in recent months my hon. Friend, with his own special interest in these matters, has been one of the most prominent hon. Members of the House arguing that we should not interfere in the internal politics of other countries and that we must leave it to the people of these countries to find their way forward.

In view of the implications for all the countries surrounding the Persian Gulf of recent events in Iran, and in view of British interests in the whole area, will the Minister consult his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary when he returns at the weekend and undertake to make a full statement to the House next week about the events in Iran, especially the effect of those events upon trade with Britain, oil supplies, defence contracts and banking?

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have every intention of keeping the House fully informed of the implications of what has happened for Britain and, indeed, for our other friends and allies.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans to meet representatives of the Soviet Government.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when the Foreign Secretary meets his opposite number in the Soviet Union, he will make it clear that this country, together with its allies, will stand firm against any attempt by the Soviet Union to exploit the new circumstances in Iran, especially as they affect Western supplies of oil?

I am glad to say that there is no evidence so far that recent events in Iran have been primarily the result of any action by the Soviet Union. Hon. Members will have read the firm statement in this regard made by the United States Secretary of State, and I am sure that the Soviet Union is aware that we would take a similarly adverse view of any attempt to exploit the present situation in Iran.

Despite the vertical take-off of the entire Tory Party in the general direction of China, when my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary eventually goes to the Soviet Union, will he try to explore the fact that a new leadership now exists in China and that it is in our general interests to see peace between those two great countries to help the whole world? Will he try to discover whether there is any tendency in those two Governments to move towards a rapprochement of the kind that they had in the past?

I agree that this country and the West generally have no interest whatever in trying to stimulate bad relations between the Soviet Union and China. I said earlier what many members of the Government have said, that we do not believe there is anything in our present good and improved relations with China which need in any way be regarded by the Soviet Union as a threat.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he plans to seek to visit Vienna.

My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Will my hon. Friend pass on to his right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the message that he should continue to press for the mutual and balanced force reduction talks to be raised to Foreign Minister level so that we can make some move in this log-jam which has been going on now for five years, the release of which is so vital to security in the central region of Europe?

I agree with my hon. Friend, as I know my right hon. Friend does, that what is most important in arms control matters is to ensure that the detailed technical discussions take place within the framework of real political will to make progress. In this context, we are committed to a meeting at Foreign Minister level when circumstances indicate that serious progress can be made. We do not believe that we have yet reached that stage.

Will the Minister also take the opportunity of an early visit to Vienna to see the people at the International Atomic Energy Agency there and to assure them of Her Majesty's Government's determination to provide more funds and personnel to backup that agency's work on the safeguards side of nuclear proliferation, especially bearing in mind the recent threat suggested by developments in Argentina, for example?

I can think of no more challenging issue for the international community than effective international action in this sphere. I assure the hon. Member that we want to do anything that we can do in the years ahead to make the work of that agency increasingly effective beyond what it is doing already.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking and persuading other Governments to take to help with the resettlement of temporary refugees now in Hong Kong.

As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary informed my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) on 17 January, of the further 1,500 Vietnamese refugees to be admitted to Britain, 1,000 will come from Hong Kong. We have also approached 18 other Governments requesting them urgently to accept Vietnamese refugees from Hong Kong.

Despite those approaches, is it not the case that many countries have refused to accept a fair quota of refugees from Indo-China and that they are as a result imposing an excessive burden on the Hong Kong authorities? Is it not now time for a new initiative by the British Government, through the United Nations Commission or the Commonwealth, to try to persuade more countries in Western Europe and North America to accept more refugees at a faster rate?

There is no doubt that the burden of accepting these refugees has been distributed very badly. It has been borne mainly by a few countries, especially Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong and one or two other territories. That is why, as I explained to my hon. Friend in my original reply, the British Government have made an urgent approach to a large number of other countries, asking them to make a better offer of places for these refugees.

Is the Minister aware that his answer is very unsatisfactory? It is rumoured that there are up to 100,000 or more Vietnamese of Chinese extraction who wish to leave Vietnam and who may be making their way to Hong Kong. What action is the Minister taking to help the Hong Kong authorities deal with this influx if these people arrive on their doorstep?

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentlemen's estimate may be a great underestimate of the total number who might wish to leave eventually. The total number of people of Chinese origin in Vietnam is about 1 million or more. I hope very much that most of them will not wish to leave Vietnam. I also hope that the policies of the Vietnamese Government which have encouraged that flow will cease forthwith. We have made maximum efforts to secure offers of places from other Governments and are giving every assistance to the Government of Hong Kong in dealing with the numbers already there.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet Foreign Ministers of the EEC.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he hopes next to attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet EEC Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to meet EEC Ministers.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet EEC Foreign Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend expects to meet his EEC colleagues next at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 6 Mareh.

Will my hon. Friend advise his right hon. Friend that the House is very concerned about the balance of detente, particularly the relationships of the United Kingdom and other European countries with the Soviet Union? Will he give an assurance that this country will continue to strive for detente to restore the balance that may have been affected by the recent visit of the Chinese Vice Premier to the United States?

I assure my hon. Friend that, within the context of political cooperation, members of the Nine take very seriously co-ordination of their approach to CSCE talks. We are already looking keenly at what will come on to the agenda at the next formal round in Madrid. We believe that the success of those talks will depend on the effectiveness of the preparatory work before that formal meeting takes place.

rose—

I shall call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Will the Minister confirm that he intends to raise again with his EEC counterparts the vexed question of the renegotiation of the EEC common fisheries policy? Will he confirm to the House that there will be no sell-out of essential inshore fishing interests as part of a wider EEC package deal?

The next discussion will be at the Fisheries Council due to take place on 19 February. I assure the hon. Gentleman, and, indeed, the whole House, that there is no question of a sell-out on this issue. Equally, we are convinced that it is possible to find an effective common policy which preserves and protects the undeniable rights and interests of the British fishing community, always remembering that 60 per cent. of the common fish stock will come from British waters.

Does my hon. Friend accept that our membership of the Common Market so far has been an unmitigated disaster? When he meets the Ministers on 6 March, will he make plain to them that we ought to be able to remedy the £2·5 billion deficit with other EEC countries by imposing import controls against other EEC members, unilaterally if necessary? Will he give an assurance that he will come to the House with an amendment to the European Communities Act to enable this Parliament and the Labour Government to decide whether EEC rules and directives apply in this country and so assist in restoring to this Parliament and a Labour Government the power of making economic decisions in this country?

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we see the way ahead in the context of membership of the Community within our obligations, as they stand, under the treaties. We believe that a great deal can be done to mobilise common sense and rationality in overcoming the undoubted faults and failures that exist in the life of the Community.

Has the Minister noticed that in the last few weeks a number of Tory MPs have been making remarks about the Common Market that are not altogether complimentary? One is forced to the conclusion that, as we get nearer to direct elections, they are orchestrating an argument, which they hope the electorate will accept, in terms of being slightly less pro-European than they were at the time of Britain's entry. Will he tell the Common Market leaders that he fully supports the NEC direct elections manifesto which says that if there are no fundamental reforms in that Assembly we shall seriously consider—

Order. The question is getting very long. The hon. Gentleman is giving information instead of seeking it.

The Common Market has been a long argument, and it is one that will go on for a long time—

Order. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is right, but he must still ask the question as briefly as he can.

Will the Minister tell the Common Market leaders that there is a lot of resentment over Britain having to pay £20 for every man, woman and child in this country towards the Community budget while low-paid workers in hospitals and local government are finding it difficult to get off the poverty line?

On the issue of contributions to the Community, we believe that there is a need for a thorough overhaul of the basis on which these are calculated. We believe that as the second highest net contributor to the common budget we are being asked for more than our fair share. While we are in this predicament, we have every right to speak out strongly on the reforms that we believe necessary. Of the reforms needed in the financial area, the highest priority is reform of the common agricultural policy.

Does the Minister agree that progress towards peace in the Middle East is very slow? It is beginning to become apparent that the Camp David triumph was not quite the triumph that it seemed. Will he discuss with his European colleagues whether the time is not approaching when Europe should take some initiative, bearing in mind the disastrous consequences to Western Europe if peace is not established?

The hon. Gentleman will recall that during our presidency of the Community we were able to define the common position of the Nine towards the Middle East. We must keep this issue constantly under review. The way forward is to build on the developments that have been achieved and envisaged in the Camp David context, recognising that these have to be seen as part of an approach to an overall comprehensive settlement.

When the Secretary of State next meets the EEC Ministers, will he be able to give them an unqualified assurance that the Government party in this country will be conducting the direct elections on the basis of contributing to the continuing political and economic development of the Community?

I very much hope that everybody involved in these elections will be looking for ways in which we can mobilise the people of the Community to establish the right priorities in the interests of ordinary men, women and children of the Community and not just remote technicalities, and to make this a live human campaign about issues relevant to ordinary people.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is pointless making robust statements about the threat to British interests under the OFP, the CAP and contributions to the Community budget because these statements will be treated with derision by other member States unless he makes plain what he intends to do if our legitimate requests are not met?

With great respect to my hon. Friend, we have first to demonstrate some self-confidence as a nation that we can mobilise support in the Community behind our priorities. We are already making progress. I find it extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House sometimes fail to recognise the considerable progress made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in stemming this incredible—and endless, as it appeared over the years—rise in food prices, which will only serve to build up wickedly wasteful surpluses in nobody's interest. We are making progress. Let us mobilise support behind that progress.

Will the Minister or his right hon. Friend draw the attention of his colleagues in the European Community to the declarations by leaders of the Iranian Government, just recognised by us, that they intend to withdraw from CENTO, to restructure the oil industry and to cancel a number of contracts con- cluded with European countries, and to the fact that all those matters have far-reaching implications for Western Europe, and indeed for the West as a whole? Will he further draw their attention to the sacking of the American Embassy in Iran and the murder of the American ambassador in Afghanistan and make it plain that these developments constitute a potential threat to peace in the central Asian area? Will he, before these discussions take place, take the opportunity, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has suggested, of taking the opinion of the House on these matters?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that already this week, on Monday, there were Community discussions evaluating the consequences for individual members of the Community and the Community as a whole of what has happened. The common objective of the Community is to work together with the people of Iran for a stable future for that country, which will be in the interests not only of the people of Iran but of the international community as a whole.

Does my hon. Friend agree that major reforms of the Common Market will not be achieved without the consent of all members, and that, since members' interests are in conflict, it is obviously impossible to achieve it by persuasion alone? Is it not the case that the only weapon we have is to demonstrate that in that circumstance we are prepared to withdraw?

If we constantly parade the threat of withdrawal from the Community that undermines our influence within the Community, because those who are then expected to listen to our arguments do not listen to them on their merits. They listen to the argument of someone who is saying "Either we get our way or we withdraw." I believe that there is much evidence that if we use the power of rational persuasion and argument we can mobilise support behind our priorities.

Returning to the Minister's earlier answer about our contribution to the budget, will he confirm that the main reason why our contribution to the EEC budget has soared when expressed in pounds, as the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) expressed it, is that the Government have allowed the pound to sink by 30 or 40 per cent. compared with the main European currencies?

I think that the hon. Member is misleading the House. Of course inflation and devaluation have an impact, but the fact remains that we are the second largest net contributor to that budget. That is an unfair burden on the British people.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I reserve the right to raise the matter on the Adjournment—and I am a Member who has been here.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what effect he expects the projected enlargement of the EEC to have on the position of the United Kingdom within the Community.

Although there will be economic costs, we expect that enlargement will in the long run strengthen the Community and its member States, including the United Kingdom.

But is my hon. Friend aware that he is completely misreading the strength of feeling in the House and the country about the economic burdens that we are already facing because we are in the Common Market? Is he aware that the Germans receive £11 per head from the Common Market funds and that Denmark receives £107 per head? Does he not consider that the renegotiation of our membership terms should be carried out before the mediaeval agricultural countries of Greece, Spain and Portugal are accepted into the Common Market? It will be too late afterwards.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has made it plain that we shall stand resolutely against any further price increases which would lead to still more wasteful surpluses this year. He is making that stand, of course, in the centre of the most expensive element of the common budget—the one that leads to this heavy burden on the British people. I hope that we can have the united support of the House for what he is trying to do.

What consultations has the Minister had with the Minister of Agriculture about Greece's entry into the Common Market? Is he aware of the importance of agriculture to the Greek economy and the increased competition that this will create for limited EEC agricultural funds?

Of course we are aware of the importance of agriculture for Greece. I am sure that hon. Members will have taken account of the fact that, if we want cheaper supplies of some of our foodstuffs, some of the new candidate countries may be able to provide them.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further progress has been made towards enlargement of the EEC; and if he will make a statement.

Negotiations with Spain were formally opened on 5 February. On other aspects of enlargement, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 17 January.

But what specific obstacles does the Minister now see standing in the way of the successful completion of these negotiations? Can he say more about the kind of changes he would like to see in the common agricultural policy in order to assist the process of enlargement?

Britain has been in the vanguard of those arguing for Spanish accession. As for reform of the CAP, which we do not see tied to the issue of enlargement, our priorities are to eliminate costly surpluses and the financial burden that they place on the British people, to get fairer access for reasonable competitive foodstuffs from third countries and to ensure, as I have repeatedly told the House and as my right hon. Friend is already achieving, a fairer deal for the consumer as weighed against the interests of the producer in the life of the Community.

Is damage to the British textile industry one of the economic factors that the Minister expects to flow from any enlargement of the Common Market?

We have to take very seriously the complications presented by enlargement for the textile industry throughout the Community. That will be high on the agenda in the negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will resist proposals for the EEC to develop a military arm.

No such proposals are under consideration in the Community or among the Nine. Nor would we favour them if they were. For the foreseeable future the defence of Europe will remain a matter for NATO.

Will the Minister refuse to make the Common Market an economic base for a military anti-Soviet pact, which the Bow Group is now pressing for, and which some of us warned against years ago? Instead, will he help to end the division between the EEC and COMECON?

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows of the discussions and negotiations on the relationships between the EEC and COMECON which have been under way now for some time. As for defence, I repeat that the Government believe that the Atlantic dimension is absolutely indispensable to the defence and security of this country. We therefore put all our approach to defence squarely on the principle of membership of NATO.

Will the Minister use the forum of the Council of Ministers to encourage France to rejoin NATO as a full member?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Nine, as distinct from the Community. We do not see the forum of political co-operation in the Nine as the right place to advance this matter, because there are members of the Nine who are not members of NATO. But as friends and allies on a bilateral basis, this is a subject that we shall always keep under review.

Is it not the case that the Nine are seeking to establish and improve relationships with China? Can my hon. Friend confirm that, in the Council of Ministers, the Nine agree with the concept of the British sale of Harriers to China?

We have already dealt this afternoon with the subject of that sale. I am glad to say that the Community is putting a great deal of work into economic relations with China.

Since the defence of Europe cannot be separated from the defence of areas that are vital to Europe, will the Minister, with his colleagues in the Community, address himself to the consequences of the collapse of CENTO? Will he take the opportunity of his visit next week to the Gulf personally to visit the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and discuss with him the future position of Iran within CENTO, which I understand would be welcome to the present authorities in Iran?

We are straying a long way from the life of the Community, but I shall not be able to visit the Ayatollah Khomeini during my time in the Gulf next week. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman on that score. However, we recognise the implications for us of what has happened in Iran. That is why we had the meeting to which I have referred, on Monday this week, to discuss the implications. We shall keep the matter under active and constant review.