asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his engagements for 20 February.

In addition to my duties in this House I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I shall also be opening the premises of the new Policy Studies Institute.

Will my right hon. Friend find time today to look at a report of an interview in the Sunday Telegraph of last Sunday with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who defended the closed shop and said that the CBI in general welcomed it, said it would be disastrous for the Conservative Party to fight an election on confronting the unions and added that the White Paper last week was not a boneless wonder but a step in the right direction? In view of the current Dr. Jekyll and Mrs. Hyde policy of the Opposition Front Bench, will my right hon. Friend ask ACAS to settle the dispute?

What my hon. Friend said illustrates what the country knows. This is an enormously difficult area in which to reach agreement and to take action. I am not surprised at the differences between the Leader of the Opposition and her foremost spokesman on these matters. I hope that the Conservatives will do more to throw their weight behind the agreement that we reached with the TUC, which is—as the right hon. Gentleman said—a step in the right direction. I hope to see many more such steps taken.

If the Prime Minister and his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to see many more such steps taken, perhaps they will take the advice of my right hon. Friend and myself and back up the start which the TUC has made by putting some teeth into it and by supporting all-party legislation in the House on the closed shop, picketing and secret ballots.

I think that I noticed what the right hon. Lady had to say about responding to an approach by her. It would be very useful if we could have all-party agreement on the basis of what has been done between the Government and the TUC. But I suggest that if she really wants all-party talks to get some agreement, she might try to reach agreement with her own spokesman first.

Is my right hon. Friend concerned about the axe which seems to be hanging over BBC current affairs programmes which, if carried through, would deny the nation an opportunity of seeing the disarray that there is in industrial relations matters in the Tory Party, as revealed on last night's Panorama programme? Will he arrange for a rocket to be put under the Home Office study on how to finance the BBC so that we may have a scheme whereby the BBC is financed from the Exchequer? At a stroke that would relieve many old people and low-paid workers of the television licence payment and give the broadcasters adequate sums of money with which to do their job.

It would indeed be convenient and palatable to the public and those who think like my hon. Friend if they were relieved of the payment of the television licence fee, but the addition of that formidable sum to our public expenditure would mean that we should have to make cuts elsewhere. I would not think that right. That is my view.

Will the Prime Minister have a word with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and ask him how it is that neither he nor his predecessor, nor any of the junior Ministers in his Department, in the past four and a half years of the Labour Administration, have found time to visit, either formally or informally, Catterick camp, which is the second largest military establishment in this country? If they are unable to come, would the Prime Minister like to call there some time?

I should be very happy indeed to call. On the last occasion that I visited the headquarters of the Royal Armoured Corps I made a direct hit on a target from one of our tanks. I think that it was more luck than skill.

It was certainly the first that the right hon. Gentleman has ever made.

I shall make one on the hon. Gentleman if he is not careful. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Kitson) is correct in his facts about Ministers visiting Catterick camp. I shall inquire into this. I am assured that he may be incorrect, so perhaps some check ought to be made.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Is the Prime Minister aware that, according to Government statistics, about £20 million a day is going to the aid of private companies? He referred earlier to a study group. Will he ask for a study to be made not of the trade unions but of the correlation between the amount of money going to private companies and the financing of the Tory Party as a result of these large donations in the form of tax relief, grants, and so on? Is not the truth that the Leader of the Opposition is in favour of using public money only as long as it finishes in the Tory Party's pocket?

It is the case, as my hon. Friend says—although I have not checked his arithmetic—that a very large sum of money is going by way of grants and subsidies to private industry in this country, in order to promote employment, to promote exports, to help it with credit facilities, and in many other ways which are deeply appreciated. Rather than set in hand the study to which my hon. Friend refers, it might be more useful if we set in hand a study of what would happen if ever the Conservative Party came to power and removed this kind of subsidy. A study could be made of the adverse effect that it would have on employment in this country. That would be more to the point.

As part of the Prime Minister's new pay policy appears to be the doctrine of comparability, pending comparability studies between the private sector and the public sector may we know what the Prime Minister's definition of comparability includes? Does it include similar manning levels, a similar degree of job security, and a similar entitlement to inflation-proof pensions?

We are entering into discussions so that any body that is set up to examine these questions of comparability in the future, as review bodies have done in the past, will have an agreed set of criteria. Those that the right hon. Lady has mentioned would clearly be included among them, because they are of importance. There are other issues, such as pension rights and matters of that sort, all of which have to be taken into account when real comparability is assessed.

I am grateful to the Prime Minister for accepting that these three things must be included in any comparability study. Does he agree with Mr. Frank Chapple that everyone knows that there is gross overmanning in the public sector? If he does, will he accept that the only way to meet increased pay claims is by job shedding?

It is not my responsibility to answer for the views of any trade union leader, however eminent, and however colourful his language. I am not required, therefore, to comment on what Mr. Chapple has to say. I have always found that he expresses his views in a forceful manner. I have no doubt that he will continue to do so. Frequently there is a large degree of truth in what he has to say, but not all truth is reposed even in him.

Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the marathon task of putting the Scotland Act 1978 on the statute book? Is he aware that there are people, mainly in the Conservative Party, who claim to be convinced devolutionists and who are advising people to vote "No" in the referendum, simply because of minor shortcomings in certain sections of the Act? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Act is rejected by the people of Scotland it is unlikely that there will be another opportunity for radical constitutional reform in Scotland in his lifetime or in mine?

After the great efforts that the Government made, extending over two or three Sessions, with several White Papers and two or three Bills, before we finally turned this proposal into an Act with the assent of Parliament, I think that my hon. Friend is right when he says that if devolution were to be rejected it would be a very bold Governfent who would pick up the issue again and try to put it through Parliament. That is why I regard the issue that is about to be decided as of first importance. I hope that everybody will vote. I hope that the people of Scotland and of Wales will vote "Yes".

In view of that reply, will the Prime Minister take time today to ensure that the referendum broadcasts are apportioned in accordance with the question on the ballot paper and not on a party political basis? Is he aware that, despite the interdict granted in the Court of Session last Friday against the IBA, the BBC is at this moment considering going ahead with its broadcasts on a party political basis? Will he now take responsibility for ensuring that both the "Yes" and the "No" campaigns are given a fair and equal opportunity to present their case to the Scottish people before they make this important and irreversible decision?

These broadcasts are the responsibility not of the Government but of the parties. It was the parties which had the discussion with the BBC and the IBA. It is for the parties, therefore, to take up these matters if they wish to do so. What the BBC does is a matter for the BBC. If I may express a personal hope, I trust that these broadcasts will go on. I do not see why the Conservative Party should seek to deny the people of Scotland or of Wales the fullest information that they can get.

asked the Prime Minister if he will visit the constituency of Brigg and Scunthorpe.

I have at present no plans to visit Brigg and Scunthorpe.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that answer? If he came to Brigg and Scunthorpe he would be able to talk to ordinary people. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is aware that Humberside is one of the two areas with a new county council, the other being Avon. This has been resented by the people in the area. It was a disaster brought about by the former Conservative Administration. When my right hon. Friend is considering the Government's proposals for organic change, will he have a word with his colleagues to ensure that more power is brought back to the smaller local authorities, rather than leaving it with the big nine?

From my visits around the country—and I shall be very happy to come to both Brigg and Scunthorpe in due course—I have found substantial dissatisfaction with the reorganisation of local government which took place as the result of legislation passed by the former Administration. I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment what my hon. Friend has said about extending the powers further, but I think that we should start cautiously in this matter. What my hon. Friend has proposed has met with a great deal of consent.

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 20 February.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

Will the Prime Minister find time to consider the fact that many countries are not accepting a reasonable number of refugees from Indo-China, with very serious consequences for the refugees and for Hong Kong? Will he now consider a new British initiative, through the United Nations and the Commonwealth, to try to persuade many other countries to accept a fair quota of refugees from Indo-China?

I am aware of my hon. Friend's great concern in this matter, particularly since his recent visit to Hong Kong. I realise the strain that has been placed on the colony. It would not be fair to say that this country has not given a lead, both financially and in its willingness to take refugees—what are called the boat people. We have also represented to the Vietnamese Government that it would be as well if they would desist from permitting their officials to accept money in order to get people out of the country in this way. It is resulting in a corrupt traffic which, I believe, would be condemned by everybody.

May I revert to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the job-shedding suggestion made by a certain trade union leader? Will the Prime Minister consider during the day that in areas such as my own, thanks to the co-operation between such bodies as the Rural Development Board, representing public investment, and private industry concerned with private investment, new industries and new jobs have been set up? Is not this a necessary corollary before we can consider large-scale job shedding in established or petrified industries?

I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Member. What is clear is that if we are to have additional productivity, which we need in a great many areas of our public and private sectors, there must be, side by side with that, stimulation and help from Government funds and Government subsidies so that new businesses can be created, as we have seen very much to our advantage in South Wales and, I believe, in mid-Wales. In my own constituency I have seen what great value can be achieved by this. That is why I believe that the statement by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that all grants and subsidies do harm is hopelessly unrelated to reality.

Perhaps I may bring the Prime Minister back in his considerations today to the problem of broadcasting during the referendum campaign. Does not he agree that, in the very difficult circumstances that have now arisen, it would be far better to revert to the principle of two broadcasts for the "Yes" vote and two broadcasts for the "No" vote, a proposal which the Conservative Party has all along strongly supported?

I was not present at the discussions that took place on this matter. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was present. However, I must say that there is some dispute as to his version.

indicated dissent.

There is a dispute as to the right hon. Gentleman's version of what took place at those meetings. The right hon. Gentleman the Opposition Chief Whip was also involved in them. As to whether the Conservative Party has taken that view, that is something on which I must reserve judgment. As to the future, I believe that the arrangements entered into by the parties at that time were correct, and I hope that they can be carried through.

I put it to the Prime Minister that, irrespective of what happened at any meetings, the issue now is that a new situation has arisen because of the injunction in the courts, which has invalidated the agreements made at that time. In that situation, would it not be fairer to revert to the principle of two broadcasts for the "Yes" campaign and two for the "No" campaign, which, after all, would seem to be abundantly fair and would be in line with what the broadcasting authorities could do and were prepared to do?

If the right hon. Gentleman wants to have fresh discussions between the parties it is open to him to take that up, but this is not a matter of governmental responsibility. I thought at the time that the arrangements that the parties had made, which I believed met with acquiescence if not agreement, were probably right. However, I do not wish to see anyone denied access to this medium. The more people who hear the arguments, the more likely they are to vote "Yes" when the day comes.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would think it right to give the House some guidance about the reading of questions by hon. Members. Is the reason why hon. Members are not allowed to read questions that they are not allowed to write down speeches, and are they not allowed to write down speeches in case the King should see them? Has not the King concerned been dead for 330 years, and has not the Official Report been in operation for over 150 years? Is there really any point in having a rule which says that hon. Members may not read the questions that they are asking?

Since a supplementary question is supposed to be related to the answer that has just been given, it is very difficult to write out in advance what the question should be.

I beg to ask the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, to put to the Secretary of State for Scotland the following question, of which I have given him private notice, namely, what contingency provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]

Order. When a private notice question has been allowed, the hon. Member concerned has to keep to the terms of the question that I approved.

what contingency provisions will be made for litigation and trial in the courts of justice in Scotland from Friday 23 February onwards, when all clerical grades of court officers will be on strike and the courts of justice will be suspended without limit of time.

I understand that there is a possibility that members of two Civil Service unions who are employed in the Scottish courts service, which covers the High Court of Justiciary, the Court of Session and the sheriff courts, may take industrial action as from 23 February in connection with pay negotiations.

I consider any action which would prevent the proper functioning of the courts to be utterly deplorable.

Should such action be taken, the indications are that a few sheriff courts will continue to function normally, but in others it may be possible to deal only with essential civil and criminal business. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has taken steps in the event of strike action to reduce the amount of criminal work coming before the courts after 23 February. The Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary are making rules of court, by Act of Sederunt and Act of Adjournal, to make provision for the suspension of the civil and criminal business of the Court of Session, High Court of Justiciary and sheriff courts, should this be necessary.

The situation will obviously vary from court to court and my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and I will keep the matter under constant review.

I am obliged to the Secretary of State for his statement. I share his view that any action which prevents the administration of justice is deplorable.

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that this is the first time in any part of this country that the administration of justice has been suspended by strike action? Does he also appreciate that Scotland has probably been chosen because we have a rule of law which prevents a person in custody being tried after 110 days?

Will the Secretary of State therefore give special help to his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate to ensure that justice is done, whereby the guilty are not allowed to go free because of this action and the innocent are not held in custody as a result of this action? Will the right hon. Gentleman introduce emergency legislation to ensure that in this country justice is done?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate hopes to deal with the question of the 110-day rule by petition to the High Court later this week. As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, it is, of course, for the High Court to decide on the petition.

Bearing in mind that trials have to be completed within 110 days of the date of committal, is there not a serious risk that many persons charged with serious crimes will have to be released unless emergency measures are undertaken by the Lord Advocate? May we have a firmer commitment from the right hon. Gentleman that something effective will be done to ensure that the general public are properly safeguarded?

I have already answered that question. My right hon. and learned Friend's petitions will be presented tomorrow. I cannot give an absolute assurance to the House. The hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, will know that these matters are for decision by the High Court. We are attempting to cover the situation. The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) talked about emergency legislation. If we have a long strike and there is considerable dislocation, I may have to consider taking that action, but at present I believe that we may deal with the matter in the manner that I have already indicated.

rose—

Order. I shall call the three hon. Members who have been rising to ask supplementary questions.

What emergency arrangements are being made to take care of the cases of those who have been arrested on charges and who cannot be released on bail until applications for bail have been considered by the courts?

The Acts of Adjournal that the High Court of Justiciary will be introducing as from tomorrow will deal with that difficulty. We are attempting to cover all these difficult matters. I believe that the Acts of Adjournal will cover the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

In view of the continuance of industrial action by public service employees, and especially its effects on schools, what contingency plans has the right hon. Gentleman for polling arrangements next week?

Order. That is a separate question, which the hon. Gentleman must present in some other way.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that strike activity that seeks to prevent and succeeds in preventing the administration of justice is to be considered political and not merely industrial action? In these special circumstances, what thought has the right hon. Gentleman given to finding replacement staff who are able and willing to do the work of those who are refusing to work?

If necessary I shall consider the latter part of the hon. Gentle man's question. The action that has been taken is utterly unnecessary. It is concerned with a pay claim that is not due for settlement until 1 April. Some of those concerned are not by any stretch of the imagination to be considered in the low-paid category. I understand that a number of those who have indicated that they will be on strike from next week are earning more than £10,000 a year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that if the action that the Lord Advocate proposes to take is successful it will prevent persons accused of serious crimes being set free or other persons being detained indefinitely? Will he bear in mind that it was only last week that the Government announced with a blaze of publicity the new concordat with the unions, which included the following:

" The TUC emphasises the vital necessity of maintaining…services essential to the…safety of the community…during industrial disputes."

Does he propose to invite the TUC to indicate how it can honour the pledge or concordat in view of the desperately serious problem facing Scotland?

I can give the hon. Gentleman and the House the assurance that I shall be doing everything possible to avert the industrial action that is to take place. If, unfortunately, the action takes place despite these efforts, I am not able to give categorical assurances on some of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. They are not matters for Ministers alone, as they also involve the courts in taking decisions. As for the Government taking the initiative, the initiative has already been taken by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the current situation in Iran and the surrounding region.

The people of Iran are determining their own future, and we respect their right to do so. Iran is a country with a long history, real political and strategical significance and considerable economic potential. In our recognition we made plain our wish to have good, close relations with the new Government.

As to our commercial relations, the events of the past few weeks have brought Iran's economy near to standstill. This is bound to have its effect on our exports, as well as on employment within the affected industries in this country. It may be some months before we see the full consequences. Nevertheless, I believe that our trading relations should survive the present difficulties. The greater part involves civilian goods and services of a kind that Iran will continue to need once its oil production and economic activity revive.

So far as defence equipment is concerned, the Iranian authorities indicated some weeks ago that they wanted to cancel some contracts and amend others. All the implications of this are now being carefully examined and we will keep the House informed as to the results.

The implications of the Iranian situation in the world energy market are potentially serious. The loss of 5 million barrels a day of Iranian crude has been only partially compensated by increased production elsewhere, and so stocks everywhere are being reduced. We hope that the problems that have arisen will be only temporary. Meanwhile, we are discussing with both our industrialised partners and with the oil-producing countries ways of mitigating their effects.

I had valuable discussions on events in Iran during Her Majesty the Queen's very successful visits to Kuwait, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. The Gulf States and Saudi Arabia are already adapting to the new situation and I assured them of our continuing full support.

The new Iranian Government will wish to determine for themselves the future pat tern of their security arrangements and I hope they will do so in consultation with their closest neighbours.

I am glad to say that the British community has not suffered physical harm during recent events. There are now only about 800 British citizens left in Iran. The Royal Air Force has flown out over 600 of our nationals during the past four days and others have left by sea. I am most grateful, as I am sure the House is, to the Royal Air Force and to the Royal Navy for their help with this difficult operation.

The situation is too uncertain for us to be able to make confident predictions about future developments in Iran and in the region. But it will clearly be even more important than hitherto to reach a comprehensive settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute.

Finally, these last few months have seen a dramatic change in a country of pivotal importance. We will best maintain our interests and influence by being seen to respect the judgment of the peoples of the region and by working with them as they shape their own destiny.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we hope very much that stability will return quickly to Iran for the sake of Iran, the surrounding region and the whole West? I agree with him that it may be some little time before the full consequences of what has happened will emerge. I doubt whether the statement tells us what we really want to know in the light of the major change that has occurred.

Our first consideration must be the safety of British subjects. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy and the work that they have done. Will he say something more about the remaining 800 British citizens who are left in Iran? What provision may be made for their safety and protection?

The statement may be as far as the Govenment feel able to go today. Obviously a full statement of all the consequences and implications will be required. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will undertake to keep the House informed both before we rise at the end of the week and when we return, especially as we in Britain have special concerns in Iran with defence contracts. energy supplies and trade generally. In these circumstances, it would be right and helpful and better from the Government's point of view if the right hon. Gentleman were to take the House and the country fully into his confidence about the implications of what has happened.

On any analysis, we have witnessed a drastic change in Iran and in that region. I ask the right hon. Gentleman what strategic reassessment is being made with our European partners, the United States and NATO to take account of the changed circumstances in Iran.

The strategic implications have been discussed extensively with our European colleagues at a number of different meetings at Foreign Minister level during the past few months. The decision on recognition is the most recent example of the close co-ordination between member States.

As for the strategic significance, I think that we are all concerned about supplies of oil and their unfettered passage through the Gulf. That is a concern for everybody in the world. We should not be too alarmist or too complacent about the likely outcome. I see no signs of Iran, which has immense internal problems, wishing in any way to challenge the integrity of the States surrounding it. It is important that they should see their relations in a regional context and consult among the other States. In discussions with the Gulf States, I think that that is very much how they see it. They do not want too much outside interference from us. They want to feel that they have confidence in our friendship and support. I do not think that they want outside military, overt NATO interference in their strategic situation.

If there are difficulties over the 800 citizens still left in Iran coming out, we would be prepared to try to help, as we have done in the past, with Service-assisted flights. I believe that those people who are staying are fully aware of the situation and are staying because they have a vital job. I hope that many citizens will be able to go back and contribute to the commercial life of Iran. We have much to contribute to Iran over the next few months as that country builds up its economy. I hope that Iran will look to this country for help and support.

Will the Foreign Secretary indicate what proportion of defence contracts which have been cancelled were prepaid and what proportion of those will be annulled? It is our greatest hope that British commercial and trade relations will be resumed when normality is restored. These things tend to revive. What steps is Her Majesty's ambassador taking to contact the new Government on these matters?

Our ambassador has already had a useful talk with the Prime Minister and his new Foreign Minister. There is as much contact as there can be in very difficult circumstances on all aspects of our commercial and defence relationships. It is difficult to give an exact picture of the eventual outcome. I recognise that the House will want more information. I readily accept that this is necessary. Various Ministers who are involved will be prepared to inform the House—my right hon. Friend has already given some information about defence contracts—when the situation is clearer.

It is good that a very high percentage of contracts has already been covered by payments. The exact percentage is difficut to assess at this stage, but we will report to the House.

My right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement that the Iranian authorities had come to certain decisions about defence equipment. Which Iranian authorities?

Some of the decisions were made by the previous Government of Dr. Bakhtiar. The present Government of Dr. Bazargan has not carried through the full implications of all those discussions. We are still resting to some extent on the decisions taken by the previous Government. I have no reason to think that they will be very different. We shall need to discuss the detail with the new Government and come to an arrangement over tidying up some aspects. I do not rule out the possibility of an arrangement being made which will not be quite as dire as it once looked. We have to examine the full consequences and consult with industry in this country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, with the intended withdrawal of Iran from CENTO and the cancellation of a number of our defence contracts, Iraq now becomes by far the strongest military power in the Gulf and that Iraq is tied to the Soviet Union by a military treaty and is well equipped with Soviet weapons, including offensive tanks and bombs? What steps are the Government taking to try to restore some kind of military balance in the Gulf? Has the Foreign Secretary assured our American allies that if they were prepared to send a maritime or air force presence into the area we would be prepared to join with them?

No; I do not think that that would be either an appropriate response or one with which we would wish to be identified. I do not think that that is what our friends in the Gulf would wish. I have spent the last week in discussions with three countries which have a long, traditional friendship with this country. I do not believe that that sort of overt military presence is what they believe the present situation requires. Far from it. What they want to feel is that, if they need help and request it of us, we will be ready to respond. That is very different from volunteering it.

The countries with which I have had discussions—Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and others—are ones to which we normally supply defence equipment. Under these arrangements, we have a close relationship in defence matters. This relationship can be developed or extended if they wish it. These are choices for those countries to make. They are not for us to make for them.

Does my right hon. Friend have any information about the whereabouts of Dr. Bakhtiar, the former Prime Minister? Now that we have established communications with the new regime and have recognised it, can the point be made with suitable sensitivity that we hope that Dr. Bakhtiar will be treated justly and humanely and not be overtaken by the summary vengeance which has befallen many of the agents of the Shah's regime?

I do not, unfortunately, know the answer to my hon. Friend's question about Dr. Bakhtiar. I hope that the many statements which the Ayatollah Khomeini and others have made about human rights over the past few months will be demonstrated in the admittedly difficult circumstances with which they are dealing. We must hope that they will respect that. I hope that all Members of the House would wish them to do so.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultation with our European partners. How recently, and in what sense, has he been talking to his opposite numbers, in view of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the dangers that obviously adhere to the present situation in the Gulf?

We discussed this matter informally at the last Council of Foreign Ministers. We have discussed it on many other occasions. I must say to the right hon. Gentleman and a number of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches that the belief that the way to help and support stability in that region is best achieved by military overt influence by Western European countries is not shared by our Western European partners. They do not have enthusiasm for this type of military response. One has only to see the statements made by the Federal Republic of Germany and France to realise their attitude.

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the manner in which Britain and the United States have based their past policies on support for autocracy and military dictatorship in the Gulf and their refusal to recognise the opposition and democratic forces has ended in the complete failure of those policies? Will my right hon. Friend take care to ensure that we do not make the same mistake in the rest of the Gulf? Should he not now make clear that we recognise the rights of all the peoples in those areas to democracy and to proper humane treatment?

I have noticed that this Government and, to some extent, the United States Government are criticised, on the one hand, for paying too much attention and putting pressure on human rights and the need to move towards greater liberalisation and democracy, and, on the other hand, for doing nothing in all these areas. The fact is that we were concerned about those developments. History will judge the outcome of what is happening in Iran. It is much too soon to make predictions about what will happen. I shall be content to be judged by history as to whether or not we chose wisely in the British national interest.

In view of the serious implications of what has happened in Iran for the defence and commercial interests of this country and the whole Western Alliance, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when he makes a fuller and more considered statement to the House on this subject it forms the basis for a full day's debate in Government time?

My right hon. Friend the Lord President no doubt heard the right hon. Member's remarks about a debate.

Major issues will need to be considered. But it is difficult to make definite predictions at this time. The situation is still moving. There is still much movement. I believe that it is in the interests of the Iranian people and of the West that the Government of Dr. Bazargan should be given every support to enable them to sustain their authority and that authority throughout the whole territory of Iran.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there should be some satisfaction at least in the ending of many of the repressive practices of the previous regime? Does he further accept that the problems that the West now faces in respect of oil could be acute? Has he seen the transcript of Dr. Schlesinger's evidence to a committee in the United States? Does he agree that the inflationary impact of the cut in oil supplies could be very serious for the West? Does he agree that we should take due note of those inflationary consequences?

There is no doubt that there is the potential to affect the whole economy of the world, not just of the West. The inflationary spiral in 1973–74 had savage effects upon Third World countries.

It is too early to be certain that this will happen. Much will depend on whether there is an increase in production to make up the shortfall. Much will also depend on the decisions that are currently being considered and made on pricing policy. I believe that we must be vigilant and examine the situation carefully as it develops in the next few months.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the strongly pro-Palestinian attitude that is being adopted by the new regime could pose serious problems for the small Gulf States that he visited recently, since they have large Palestinian populations? Does he agree that these groups of people now have access to a large arsenal, which was hitherto denied to them? Therefore, does he agree that urgent consideration should be given to finding a just and fair solution to the Palestinian problem?

I agree. One definite conclusion that can be drawn from the events of the last few months and weeks is that far greater priority even than has been given recently will have to be given to trying to achieve a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East. I believe that this is one of the consequences of the events, and we should act accordingly.

I return to the previous question. Does my right hon. Friend agree that because of the Islamic revival and the collapse of the Camp David initiative—which some of us foresaw—and in view of the overriding consideration of British interests, it is now necessary for the Government to reconsider their stance on Israeli intransigence in the Middle East and on the absolute need to recognise Palestinian rights, and to work for the establishment of a Palestinian State?

On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, he will know that we have recognised Palestinian rights. We have always stated our profound belief that there will be no resolution of the Arab-Israeli problem unless the Palestinian viewpoint is taken into account. We have said, further, that we believe that a Palestinian homeland is a necessary part of taking into account those legitimate aspirations. The problem facing the West is how to maintain the momentum established by Camp David. I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the Camp David initiative has collapsed.

It is necessary to move on from substantial progress in agreement between Israel and Egypt in relation to Sinai and to widen that agreement so that it covers the West Bank and Gaza and forms part of a comprehensive peace settlement that all the moderate Arab States can support. I believe that they wish to do that. This will be the task of American statesmanship and the European Community in the next few months. It is an urgent task.

Has our ambassador made any personal contact with the Ayatollah Khomeini? Will the Foreign Secretary send to the Ayatollah a message expressing repugnance at the horrible executions that are now taking place in Iran? In order to facilitate a further debate, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House, as soon as he can, what is the Government's best assessment of the number of jobs that are at risk through the cancellation or postponement of contracts? Will he also estimate the loss of foreign exchange to Britain as a result of the fall in BP's oil lift?

In view of the collapse of CENTO, what consultation is the Foreign Secretary having with our European and American allies about the future of the powerful Iranian air force, which must now be a destabilising factor since it is in uncertain hands?

The hon. Member talks of repugnance. The issues involve human rights, about which I have spoken many times from the Dispatch Box. I have expressed my concern and justified private representation between Governments. I still believe that that is the best way to achieve results. That is the best way when dealing with the new Government, as it was when dealing with the Shah. I shall make those representations in a way in which I think is right and appropriate.

It is difficult to quantify the loss of jobs at this stage. The amount of lost foreign exchange is also extremely difficult to estimate, particularly when oil products are involved, because much depends on price and the availability of supplies.

The hon. Member said that there was a destabilising influence. It is not for me to make such decisions. These are matters for the Iranian Government. I hope that they will be able to achieve an accommodation with the armed forces in that country. There are limits to how far the House can pretend to interfere with the arrangements of the internal forces in Iran.

Will my right hon. Friend illustrate the virtues or defects of Ques tion Time by answering a simple question? Was his support of the Shah based on, or contrary to, the advice of our ambassador in Tehran?

It was a considered judgment by the Government, taking into account all the evidence that they had at the time, including advice from the ambassador in Tehran. But there are more inputs to that judgment than come from Tehran. They come from all round the world.

I am prepared to be justified by history. It is far too early to say whether we shall regret decisions taken in September or October. The full consequences to employment, the economy and strategic and political stability have yet to be determined.

Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the contracts between the British Government and the former Iranian Government on the one hand with the British Defence Department and manufacturers on the other? May we have an assurance that the British Government will, under all circumstances, adhere to the contracts that they have made?

It is not just a question of the Government. In some cases the Government are parties to the contracts. In others the Government are involved, but indirectly. A complex legal question arises over the attitude of the new Government in Iran to the contracts that were entered into by the previous Iranian Government. These are reasons why it is impossibly difficult to quantify in terms of cost and employment. It will take some weeks or months before we are fully able to dc that. For our part we shall certainly argue for the upholding of contracts between Governments and between private industry and Governments.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the many statements about human rights made by the British Government and the United States Government and our knowledge of the Savak, it is staggering that we should have clung on for so long to the coat tails of the Shah? Does he accept that the Opposition, who hypocritically talk about the armaments in the hands of the new Iranian Government, helped the Shah's Government to supply practically all the armaments that are now being used in Iran?

Is he aware that at a meeting of the British-Iranian parliamentary group the other night the feeling was that we had grossly overdone the supply of armaments and that we should now supply peaceful equipment to the new Government of Iran?

The whole region has far too many armaments. Perhaps one of the justified criticisms is the extent to which arms have been poured into the region. They have been poured in as part of the Arab-Israeli dispute, which has involved this region. Arms supplies are a complex issue, which stretches back over a long time. It involves more than recent history. It has gone through the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s, and I do not believe this policy can be changed overnight; nor can we ignore others who are ready to supply arms. When we were asked to supply arms, it was not just a simple question of our refusing to do so; we had to take into consideration whether other countries would do so and what would be their influence on the country.

Putting aside the right hon. Gentleman's justification by history for a moment, since history may have other things on its mind, can he give the House his estimate of the approximate total ECGD commitment in respect of Iran?

No, but if the hon. Gentleman likes to table a question I will certainly answer it.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House whether his Department has yet initiated any discussions with the revenue authorities about the tax status of our citizens who have had to come back to Britain earlier than they had thought they would?

No.

Is the Secretary of State prepared to agree that the tragic events in Iran underline the need to make a much more realistic assessment of the international situation from the point of view of Western interests—the kind of assessment reflected, for example, by his own statement to the House this afternoon? Does he also agree that if West ern interests are to be protected they must be pursued with much more courage and determination than they have been over the last two years?

How far the strength of Western interests can be protected depends on the internal cohesion of the country they are supporting and to which they are allies, and when history turns its attention to these events—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches may want to escape it, but it may be that a very important decision has been taken, with a whole move away from a secular State and from a monarchy. Over the last few months we have seen in Iran what has been little short of a major revolution, and it is something at which history will look very closely.

Does the Foreign Secretary agree that this whole episode will provide a salutary lesson to all in the House and outside about the extent to which British Foreign Office Ministers and others of that ilk have the pulse of every nerve centre in the whole world?