asked the Lord Privy Seal what regular steps his Department takes to monitor breaches of the Helsinki Agreement by other countries.

Instructions have been given to British embassies in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries to monitor and report regularly on implementation. Information is also exchanged regularly with our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the Nine. A summary of the results will continue to be made available to the House at six-monthly intervals until the review conference in Madrid next year. I am making the latest such report in a pursuant reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) today.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the progress made in persuading the Soviet Union to fulfil the pledge in the Helsinki Agreement that there would be a much freer flow of information into and out of the Soviet Union and inside it? Which British newspapers, and how many copies, are freely and openly available in Moscow? What is the Minister doing to increase the number of British newspapers on sale?

We are not satisfied with the progress made, although there has been some improvement since the Helsinki conference. However, there has not been enough improvement and that will be pursued at the Madrid review conference next year.

Has any monitoring been done in Britain as regards breaches of the Helsinki Agreement? Is there any evidence that dissident workers who have published pamphlets attacking either their own management or the Government, have been dismissed?

No, and that is not a question for me.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussions he has had with the French Foreign Minister on the possibilities of increasing co-operation between Great Britain and France.

I took part in the discussions that my right hon. and noble Friend had with the French Foreign Minister on 19 November during the recent Anglo-French summit meeting.

As Franco-British relations appear to be stuck in a groove, would it not be a good idea for our two countries to co-operate by putting forward schemes for European co-operation? Perhaps we could co-operate with them on defence and on their nuclear programme and by using our reserves of coal and oil to make Europe stronger and safer.

I agree that Anglo-French co-operation should be increased. The scope for collaboration in nuclear energy was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy during discussions with the French Minister in the margins of the recent Anglo-French summit. We are certainly ready to play our part.

I hope that I did not misunderstand the Lord Privy Seal. Was he referring to civil nuclear power co-operation as regards the talks held at Downing Street? I certainly hope so. Was there any discussion of the French ban on imported British lamb? What was the attitude of the President of France to our representations and his position vis-á-vis the EEC?

Naturally, I was referring to civil nuclear power and that is why I referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, rather than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the subject of any conversations at summit meetings cannot be discussed. However, the subjects that the right hon. Gentleman has raised will no doubt arise later during Question Time.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the latest round of talks concerning Namibia called by the United Nations Secretary-General.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any agreement has been reached between the five Western States and the Government of South Africa on a date for the termination of South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia.

The United Nations Secretary-General arranged consultations in Geneva from 12 to 16 November between senior United Nations officials, the five Western Powers and representatives of the parties to the Namibia negotiations. There were useful discussions of the proposal for a demilitarised zone on Namibia's northern border. I hope that this proposal will contribute to a solution of the problems holding up implementation of the United Nations plan for elections under United Nations supervision and control and, of course, South African withdrawal.

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable scepticism about whether Mr. Sam Nujoma represents properly the view of all the peoples of Namibia and that there is great apprehension about the arrangements to be made to contain SWAPO forces during a ceasefire and/or an election? Will the Minister ensure that our representatives take into account the representations of all parties within Namibia, including the multi-racial parties?

It is for the people of Namibia and no one else to decide who should be their representative. As regards the containment of SWAPO activities, that is precisely the point of the proposals for a demilitarised zone. Its purpose is to provide for the anxieties expressed in certain quarters about maintaining security during the holding of free and fair elections. On the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the internal parties are not parties to the ceasefire discussions, but, in terms of holding elections in Namibia, they are equal with any other party taking part in the elections.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is for the people of Namibia to decide who is to form a Government, but why does the United Nations hold firmly to the view that only SWAPO is, or can be, the legal Government of Namibia? Is it not time for a change in that direction; and cannot the Government do something to ease us towards that?

The Government's view is that it is for the people of Namibia to decide. One development that it is important to acknowledge is that all the parties to the problem of Namibia have accepted that there should be United Nations-supervised elections under United Nations authority. That is an important political basis on which to proceed.

Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that he is not carried away by the South African propaganda which is, regrettably, espoused in the House? Is it not clear that the South Africans have no intention of allowing a stable Government and a peaceful settlement in Namibia? Will the Minister recall for discussions the Government's representative in Luanda, since he can personally report on the regular marauding of South African troops into southern Angola?

I have no intention of being carried away by anybody. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the South African Government took part in what the Secretary-General of the United Nations regarded as useful discussions about a demilitarised zone. As long as they are prepared to continue discussions, one must assume that they are interested in a negotiated settlement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of Namibia may depend to some extent on a peaceful conclusion to the problem of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia?

I accept that the two issues are inter-related. If we can make progress on one, it may assist us in making progress on the other.

The Minister has reported some progress, but it is not very specific and we are all aware that the negotiations have taken an exceptionally long time. Can he tell us a little more about the present area of disagreement to be negotiated and when the next stage in the negotiations will start?

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in the spring of this year the major outstanding matter on which there was an impasse was the question of security and the provision of security for the holding of free and fair elections in Namibia. Since then, there have been extensive consultations about how we can overcome the problem. That is what led to the concept of a demilitarised zone, which is the subject of discussions at present. As a result of the discussions in Geneva, the United Nations Secretary-General has proposed that there should be further detailed discussions about that idea, subject, of course, to the acceptance by all parties of the concept of a demilitarised zone.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the future of Gibraltar.

Following the meeting in New York on 24 September between my right hon. and noble Friend and the Spanish Foreign Minister, we are continuing to seek a way of resolving the present differences with Spain over Gibraltar. It must be consistent with the British pledge to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar with regard to their future. The maintenance of restrictions by Spain makes the search for a mutually acceptable solution more difficult; their removal would make progress easier.

Will the Lord Privy Seal say how he sees the future democratic representation of Gibraltar, perhaps on the French model? Has it been considered in regard to the House? How does he see it in Europe?

On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we do not have any plans to have Gibraltar represented in the House. I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said in the second part of his question. There seems to be no justification for the continuance of the restrictions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an unequivocal assurance that in no circumstances, whether for alliance, convenience or any other consideration, will he disregard the inalienable right of people to self-determination?

That assurance was fully contained in the answer to the original question.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, having spent from 1969 to 1975 under siege in Gibraltar, I know more about the problem than any other hon. Member?

They are missing the hon. Gentleman in Gibraltar.

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Have we not reached the time when the Government should, as a matter of urgency, consider holding talks with Spain? We keep hearing of talks about talks, but we never get to the stage of having talks that will do something towards removing the dreadful situation of the 200 yards and the barrier gate separating the Gibraltarians from their Spanish friends in La Linea, and the Spaniards in the Campo area from their relatives and friends in Gibraltar.

I agree that my hon. Friend probably knows more than any other hon. Member about the problem and that it is high time that progress was made. My hon. Friend will understand that we have had other matters on our mind, but we are hoping that we shall be able to make progress before long.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it sensible to point out to the Spanish that, if they wish to enter the EEC, one of the essential planks must be the freedom of movement of workers both ways and that it will not be acceptable for them to regard Gibraltar as not being part of that sort of arrangement?

I agree with the hon. Lady. She may be aware that when I was in Gibraltar I said that it was unthinkable that two parts of the Community could subsist with a frontier closed between them.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will raise in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights the position of political refugees in Latin America.

The United Nations Human Rights Commission will hold its next meeting in February 1980. We shall consider what matters might be raised at this meeting nearer the time.

Does the Minister agree that the position of political refugees in Latin America is still of the utmost gravity? Would it not be more advantageous to the United Kingdom in making representations if we had not phased out the admission of political refugees from Latin America?

The special admission programme is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but the hon. Gentleman will know that there is no reason why Latin American refugees should not apply to come into this country. They will be treated on their merits, as are refugees from all over the world. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the case that he mentioned, I shall look into it.

Will my hon. Friend not let concern for political refugees in Latin America disguise our concern for political refugees much nearer home in Europe who seek to get out of East Germany and elsewhere and are shot down in the process?

While entirely agreeing with my hon. and learned Friend, may I point out that we should have a programme for the admission of refugees that is the same from whichever quarter they come. There should not be special privileges for one set of refugees as opposed to another.

Few of us would disagree with the conclusions just drawn by the hon. Gentleman, but how does he justify the advice that his Department has given to the Home Office that it is now safe for Chilean refugees in this country to be returned to that foul regime in Chile? Why does the hon. Gentleman take such a benign attitude towards that regime?

We are not returning any refugees to any country. They either gain admission here or they do not. A number of Chileans here now wish to go back to Chile, and that could be because the human rights record of Chile is now, in many cases, no worse than that of some of the other offenders in Latin America.

The House will treat with great scepticism the last remark by the hon. Gentleman. Will he not reconsider the rather petty and callous decision that the Government have made in respect of the Latin-American political refugee programme? Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that that decision has condemned dozens of people, whose only crime was to speak against the dictatorship, to perpetual imprisonment and possible torture?

The hon. Gentleman's prejudice should not lead him to views of scepticism such as he has expressed. Genuine refugees can still seek exile in this country and are likely to be given it, but there is no need for a special programme. The hon. Gentleman should know that such a special programme is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and not mine.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what reaction he has received from the front-line Presidents at the passing of the Southern Rhodesia Act and if he will make a statement.

The Presidents of the front-line States were informed of the contents and purpose of the Southern Rhodesia Bill at the time it was introduced. None of them made any formal comment about it to Her Majesty's Government. The debate at that time gave hon. Members the opportunity to discuss all aspects of the Rhodesia question. Since then, the Patriotic Front has accepted our proposals for the transitional period before independence and discussions are now proceeding on a ceasefire. I shall make a further statement when there are significant developments to report.

Could not the Lord Privy Seal be a little more forthcoming? Could he say, for example, what arrangements have been made during the transitional period for the peaceful return of all refugees and political exiles from Zambia, for example, to Southern Rhodesia in time for the elections? What further representations has he made about the constant bombing and infiltration into Zambia by the Rhodesian forces at a time when we are trying to organise a ceasefire?

The hon. Lady will remember that we stated earlier that we shall facilitate the return of refugees as soon as we can. On the second point, the hon. Lady may have been in the House last week when I answered a private notice question on this point. We deplore all violence by either side at this very delicate stage of the negotiations. We are very close to an agreement and anything which endangers that is thoroughly to be deplored.

I fully appreciate that the process of negotiating takes time, but is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing anxiety on the Zimbabwe-Rhodesia/Salisbury side about the delay in implementing the dateline that his right hon. and noble Friend laid down? Could my right hon. Friend tell us how much further this dateline will be stretched?

Naturally we want to proceed as quickly as possible. Everyone will accept that. Equally, my right hon. Friend will probably concede that the date was postponed because of what happened in Zambia last week. I cannot give a dateline, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are as anxious as anyone to proceed as quickly as possible.

Have the Government accepted the principle of a Commonwealth peacekeeping force? If not, why not, particularly in view of the fact that Bishop Muzorewa is now increasing his private army to 25,000 at the expense of the taxpayers in Rhodesia?

The hon. Gentleman has a fairly short memory. In view of what he said during the debate on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, I should have thought that he would have been more careful in his present comments. He will appreciate that we are discussing these matters at present. We had a three-hour discussion with the Patriotic Front last night and another two-hour discussion this morning and I shall be returning to discuss matters with them as soon as questions and the statement have been dealt with. I hope that the House will understand the position if we confine discussions on the ceasefire to the Lancaster House discussions and wait until we make a statement in the House.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he, or his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, intends next to meet Secretary of State Vance.

My right hon. and noble Friend will meet the American Secretary of State on 13 and 14 December in Brussels at the NATO Council meeting, and on 17 December when he will accompany my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on her visit to the United States.

Will my hon. Friend urge the Foreign Secretary, when he meets Secretary of State Vance, utterly to deplore the events that are taking place in the United States embassy in Tehran? Further, will my hon. Friend urge his right hon. and noble Friend to use all his endeavours to achieve the adoption of a firm and united Western response, to what is no more and no less than primitive blackmail?

The United States is in no doubt about our support in the agony which that country is going through over the occupation of the American embassy in Tehran. Together with our friends in the Nine we have played, I believe, a useful function in helping the Americans in Tehran. We shall continue to assist the United States in any way that we can.

On a less important but none the less important matter, could the Foreign Secretary ask Secretary of State Vance whether he agrees with the leader in the New York Times regretting, from the point of view of the West, what this Government are doing to the BBC's external services?

There are many people who have to ask others to do other things. Having not seen that leader I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's question.

When the Foreign Secretary sees Secretary of State Vance will he bring to his attention the refugee situation on the Thai border? Is my hon. Friend aware that I visited those camps less than a month ago and all the prospects point to a build-up of refugees running into hundreds of thousands in the not too distant future? Those refugees have no prospect whatever of going back to their homes for a long time to come. Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this puts a tremendous burden on the Thai Government who will need all the support they can get from America, this country and the whole of the Western world?

The decision of the Thai Government to accept these refugees was a courageous and humane one. We have offered to help them to discharge the resulting responsibilities in any way that we can both through the EEC and directly. I am sure that the United States will also respond. I shall draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. and noble Friend.

When the Foreign Secretary meets Secretary of State Vance will he assure him that many of us who deplored the deposing of Mr. Mossadeq in 1953, and were against the regime of the Shah, nevertheless deplore the action of the Iranian students in imprisoning American hostages for the purpose of terrorism and blackmail? Will the hon. Gentleman assure the Foreign Secretary that he has the support of all Members of the House in obtaining the early and safe release of the hostages?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what I am sure will be the sentiments of the whole House. Unless we can be sure of the security of diplomatic staff, it will be almost impossible to conduct business between States, whatever their differences.

Is consideration being given to withdrawing all Western embassies from Tehran? If not, why not.

For the present I believe that the presence of our embassy and other Western embassies in Tehran is nothing but helpful in the short-term crisis that persists. However, the situation is being kept under close review.

There will be many matters that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will wish to discuss with Mr. Vance when they go to the United States. I hope that they will convey to him the Government's statement on their sense of outrage about events at the American Embassy in Tehran. The Opposition certainly share that feeling as we regard this as an outrageous breach of international law. Will the Government make it plain to Mr. Vance how much they appreciate the American Government's helpful intervention at one stage in the protracted London conference talks, with their offer of financial assistance in order to help solve the difficult problem of the purchase of under-used land in Rhodesia by Africans?

I am sure that both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be grateful for and feel strengthened by that assurance from the right hon. Gentleman about support in the Tehran embassy matter. I shall certainly pass on our thanks to the Americans for their helpful attitude over land in Rhodesia.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I must register a protest on behalf of many hon. Members who feel that it is outrageous that questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should be cut short at this time.

I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I must point out that I do not control that.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to meet the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the EEC.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to meet his colleagues in the EEC.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to attend a meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers.

At the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 18 December.

Can the Lord Privy Seal give an assurance that he will take the initiative and raise the question of international co-ordination of aid to Kampuchea and other countries which are in dire need? The individual efforts of separate Governments seem to be inadequate to meet the challenge.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member that this is a desperately serious problem. He will be aware that Britain has done more individually than most other countries. He will also be aware that on 30 October the Community decided to give a further £16 million for famine relief in Cambodia as its contribution to a world-wide effort to save the Cambodian people.

Will my right hon. Friend convey to his colleagues in Europe, if necessary before his meeting with them in December, that if a suitable settlement to the problem of our net contribution to Europe is not agreed in Dublin, this issue will not go away? This House will not permit it to do so. Will he also advise his colleagues in Europe that if there is protracted wrangling on this issue it will do great damage to the European cause in the United Kingdom, even among its most firm supporters?

I agree with my hon. Friend. This issue will be discussed tomorrow and the next day in Dublin by the Prime Minister. It is a most serious issue and if it is not solved it certainly will not go away.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the meeting on 18 December is formal as distinct from the informal meeting in Dublin this week? Nevertheless, will he assure the House that any agreement reached in Dublin on any matter which has not been debated in this House and has been requested by the Scrutiny Committee, will be debated before the substantive Council of Ministers meeting on 18 December or any other date that may apply?

I am not sure how informal tomorrow's meeting will be. I am not sure that that is the best description of it. The hon. Member will be aware of the answer that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave on this matter. That answer was satisfactory.

When the Lord Privy Seal or the Foreign Secretary meet their colleagues in the EEC will they take the opportunity, not least in response to the obvious bipartisan feeling in the House on this issue, to ask those colleagues when Western Europe as a whole will adopt a concerted, effective and resolute position on the situation in Tehran?

That has already been done. My hon. Friend probably will be aware of the statement that the Nine issued on Tehran when we met last week. The Nine have been concerting their action very effectively and helpfully in Tehran, and I understand that the American Government have expressed their gratitude.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that these meetings of Ministers are either formal meetings of the Council, whose decisions have the force of law, or they are not. Surely the forthcoming meeting in Dublin is not a formal meeting in that sense?

It may or may not be, but it is an extremely important meeting and that is what I was seeking to convey.

Will my right hon. Friend find an early opportunity to make clear to our European friends that if there were a disruption of oil supplies from the Middle East we would, of course, in the interests of our European partnership, wish to help out? However, will he also make clear that there would be no question of our selling oil at below world prices, any more than we would expect to buy German cars or French wine at below world prices?

I agree. Of course we will help our Community partners. We already export to the Community about 28 per cent. of our production, but it would be impracticable and disadvantageous for us to attempt to sell oil at below its market price.

When the Council of Foreign Ministers meets in its political co-operation role—and that was the point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) began—will the Lord Privy Seal ensure that he is satisfied that the collective responses and voices that are supposed to come out of Brussels are sufficiently timely and sufficiently strongly expressed? Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was barely aware of the statement made about the position in Tehran as reflected in the communiqué from Senator O'Kennedy, speaking on behalf of the Nine. Obviously there can be occasions when it is useful to have a concerted voice, but I certainly hope that the Lord Privy Seal will take the view that an individual voice can supplement the concerted voice. I hope that he will take that point on board, not only in relation to Tehran, but other matters, such as Cambodia, on which we feel strongly.

On a minor point, I do not think that this particular O'Kennedy is a senator. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point, but we do not have any control over the publicity that the statements of the Nine are given by the media over here. We issued a strong statement. Our attitude has been helpful and our support for the Americans has been unequivocal. Anything that we can do to ensure that our attitude is more widely understood, we shall do.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when his noble Friend intends to meet his European counterparts; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether his noble Friend has any plans to meet his European ministerial colleagues in the immediate future.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when his noble Friend expects to meet his European Common Market colleagues.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when his noble Friend expects to meet his EEC counterparts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when his noble Friend expects to meet his EEC colleagues.

My right hon. and noble Friend will meet his EEC colleagues at the European Council in Dublin tomorrow and on Friday.

rose—

Order. I propose to call first those five hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Can my right hon. Friend say what political initiatives the Foreign Secretary will submit to his colleagues as a way of contributing to resolving the imbalance of the United Kingdom contribution to the European budget? Does he not agree that the extension of the regional fund and the possibility of the introduction of the rural fund might be steps in the right direction which would also bring benefits to this country?

Of course that is true. However, my hon. Friend will understand that at the meeting in Dublin the Foreign Secretary will not play the principal part. It is a meeting of Heads of Government. It is not for us to take a political initiative on this point. We have made clear what we seek from our partners. The Commission has put forward two papers, and we are Seeking a broad balance.

Will my right hon. Friend ensure that his office has the fullest consultation in advance of these meetings with our European parliamentary colleagues and the leadership to ensure that we retain the best advantage from any initiatives taken by the European Parliament?

Certainly. We remain in as close touch as possible with our Members of the European Parliament, who have an important role. We try to meet them when they are here and to provide as much briefing for them as they want or need.

Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister now recognises that Britain is being fleeced as a result of our contributions to the Common Market, and the damage that it has already done to British trade and industry, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is about time the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary told his European colleagues that enough is enough?

The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. As I told the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) last month, the best way to gauge our trading performance with the EEC is to compare the export-import ratio of our bilateral trade. This was 82 per cent. in 1972 and 83 per cent. in the first nine months of this year.

Does my right hon. Friend expect that any further progress will be made at the meeting in the development of a Community foreign policy? If not, why not?

I do not expect any further development in the Community foreign policy. I think that the answer to my hon. Friend's question "Why not?" is that there will be so much else to discuss—in particular, our very important budget problem.

As our gross domestic product will suffer a more severe fall than that of any other member State next year, can we expect the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to follow up the Prime Minister's assertive words by pointing out to his counterparts in the Community that this country can no longer afford both the Conservative Administration and the costly common agricultural policy? Will the right hon. Gentleman's noble Friend ask them to say which they prefer?

I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has put it in quite those terms. We have made it clear that when, for reasons that are well known to the House, we have had to cut public expenditure, compared with what it would have been, a contribution or subscription of more than £1,000 million is unacceptable to us.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if there is any case for an enhanced regional fund, or for the idea of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks) of a rural fund, those funds can best be paid for and administered on a national basis and not an EEC basis?

I do not think that that is necessarily true.

Can the Lord Privy Seal shed any light on the proposals emanating from the Federal Republic of Germany about changes in energy policy? Can he give any indication of the Government's response?

No Sir. I cannot help the hon. Gentleman on that. I have seen reports, but we have had no representations.

What problems does it create for the right hon. Gentleman in answering questions in the House when it is his noble Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and not a member of the elected House of Commons, who attends the meetings with the Foreign Secretaries of other countries?

The hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. In fact, I do attend the meetings of the Foreign Ministers.

Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues in Europe that the United Kingdom budget deficit with our friends in the EEC must be reduced to zero, and not a penny less? [HON. MEMBERS: "More."] I am sorry—not a penny more. If our colleagues in Europe want to set about the destruction of the Community, which most of us favour—lest there be ambiguity, I add that I mean not its destruction but its continuance—the best thing they can do is not to bring about a balance in the United Kingdom's budget contribution?

My hon. Friend has expressed our objective. Perhaps he has put it rather more starkly, but certainly our objective is a broad balance. We believe that we have an unanswerable case. We hope that our partners will recognise that case and that we shall gain an equitable solution in Dublin. I agree with the implication of my hon. Friend's remarks, that if such consultation is not forthcoming that will be damaging to the Community.

How can the Lord Privy Seal maintain his attitude about trade with the EEC, as the figures for the first nine months of this year show that our deficit is running at £3,211 million? If this is continued at the same rate for the 12-month period, we shall end up with a deficit of £4,280 million, compared with £2,247 million last year.

It is true that our performance last year was better; it was 86 per cent. But what I was asked to do was to compare this year with 1972, before we entered. For those two years, the figures that I gave were correct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's attitude seems slightly ambivalent? They say that they want changes in the CAP, but when it comes to the point they will not vote even for a gesture in that direction. We should regard it as totally reprehensible if any kind of deal were done that gave way on any other aspect of British policy.

Our attitude is not ambivalent. We have made quite clear where we stand. The hon. Lady will know that the modifications proposed by the European Parliament would have had little effect on agricultural spending, which is determined by the decisions taken at the price fixing. Therefore, we did not believe that that was an appropriate way in which to tackle our problems, much as we sympathise with the Parliament's aim.

rose—

I shall call one more hon. Member from either side of the House, because five questions are being answered together.

Does my right hon. Friend agree with the leading article in the Financial Times recently on the question of the EEC summit in Dublin? That article ended with the advice to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that a capacity for compromise was not a sign of a lack of courage.

I missed that leading article, but I am sure that the sentiments it expressed were impeccable.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it quite clear to his counterparts in the EEC that the assurance given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), the previous Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, that no further powers would pass to the European Assembly, still stands, and that he and the Government will resist any attempts by the European Assembly to usurp any powers of this or any other British Government, or of this Parliament?

We have expressed our views on this matter often enough. As far as I know, the European Parliament has no plans to usurp any powers of any sort.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress is being made on discussions concerning the common system of election to be followed for the next election to the European Parliament.

Article 138(3) of the Treaty of Rome provides that the European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all member States. It goes on to say that the Council, acting unanimously, shall then lay down the appropriate provisions which it shall recommend to member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. The European Parliament has not yet drawn up proposals.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance on behalf of the Government that, as it is adopted by the other EEC countries, they will accept a proportional representation system of election to the European Parliament? Will he consider proposing on behalf of the United Kingdom the regional list system, as outlined by the previous Labour Government?

We rule out nothing. But there is a long way to go yet, and we must see what the European Parliament proposes before we can give any assurances.

In deciding their attitude on this contentious issue, will the Government be concerned to strengthen or to weaken the European Assembly?

I do not think that that is a matter that would come into our consideration. It seems to me that either electoral system might—I am unable to come to a judgment on this matter.

Will my right hon. Friend beware of the seduction towards PR in European terms? Is it not already apparent that the Members of the European Parliament are having an identification problem, without PR on a regional basis?

I am not sure that I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. I do not believe that people who are elected under PR necessarily have an identification problem. Having voted for PR in the House several times, I think it unlikely that I would express my hon. Friend's point of view. That does not alter the Government's view that we must wait to see what the European Parliament proposes before we can make any decisions.

As there is no actual proposal, I understand the Lord Privy Seal not wishing to over-commit himself, but all the same should it not be made plain to the Governments of Europe who will be considering this matter and the members of the European Assembly that there is a strong view among hon. Members on both sides of the House against the introduction of proportional representation either in the European elections or domestic elections? Is not that not quite contrary to the absurd propositions put forward by the President of the Commission, who obviously also has an influence in these matters?

It is not for me to enter into these internal Labour Party squabbles. I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said. Certainly the House and the last Parliament made the majority opinion on this matter perfectly clear in the votes.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what amount is being provided from the aid programme to the World University Service for scholarships and training for refugees.

Grants to the World University Service (United Kingdom) for the training of refugee students are expected to total £2,965,000 in the current financial year.

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the reduction in grant to the World University Service, coupled with the proposed increase in fees for overseas students, means that many fewer refugees will be able to be helped in the future? Will the Minister and his Government give special consideration to the case of the refugees who, unlike other overseas students, do not have Governments or families at home who can reasonably be expected to support them? Will the Government allow a reduction in the fees for these refugee students and treat them effectively as home students for the purpose of fees?

The matter of fees is of course one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. The hon. Gentleman may know that the programme is available only to those genuine refugees from countries which are below the income levels which bring them within our aid criteria. As such, the number of them depends much more on circumstances than he perhaps realises.

Does my hon. Friend accept that this country has a long and honourable tradition of helping refugees? Is there not a great deal to be said for what the hon. Gentleman advanced? Will the Minister please not tarnish the reputations of either the Government or the country by too readily giving way?

I would say to my hon. Friend that there is no change in the arrangements for those who are already on courses here. However, the numbers accepted in the future will depend upon the criteria that I have just given to the hon. Gentleman.

Despite the Minister's answer, does he not agree that one of the best ways of assisting Third world nations is to help with the education of their students? Therefore, is it not disgraceful that the reorientation unit of the World University Service, which co-ordinates the education of students, especially refugee students, and assists with obtaining jobs for them in the Third world when they have completed their studies, now finds that it has no money for next year? Is not that a totally nonsensical cut in public expenditure? Will the Minister reconsider the position?

As I explained, there has not been a cut of the kind that the hon. Gentleman alleges. The programme for next year has not even been agreed. He must accept that the number depends very much on the numbers who apply.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will give extra aid to Tanzania to allow for costs of removing Idi Amin from Uganda.

No, Sir.

As the Tanzanian economy was doing well before Amin invaded the country, and as the removal of Amin was welcomed by all the countries in the world, why is it that the British Government, along with many other Western Governments, have refused to help to pay for the cost of removing him?

I think that the answer is very simple. We can all feel a certain relief that President Amin has gone. However, it does not follow that aid programmes financed by the British taxpayer should be increased to finance the military enterprises of another Government.

What would be the cost of removing Tanzania from Uganda? Will we be expected to pay for that?

I do not think that that is a question for me.

If it is true, as the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said a moment ago, that all countries in the world welcomed the removal of Field Marshal Amin, where is he now?

Not, I trust, in this country.

Will the Minister, given his replies this afternoon, confirm that a generous aid programme for Tanzania will continue despite the attack made upon the Tanzanian Goverment by Lonrho recently? Will he confirm in that respect that the Foreign Office and the Overseas Development Administration have received a communication from Cooper Lybrand in Tanzania to explain that it dissociates itself from the recent Lonrho attacks on Tanzania and say that its own audit has not yet been completed?

Our total aid last year to Tanzania was about £14 million and we would expect it to be slightly higher this year. We are reviewing the whole of our aid programme, as the right hon. Lady knows. Decisions will be taken and will be announced to the House. They will not be influenced by the Lonrho company.

Will my hon. Friend look very critically at aid to Tanzania as long as she maintains a blockage on her borders with Kenya through both Tanzania and Uganda?

Because of our economic circumstances we are having to look critically at the whole distribution of our bilateral aid programme. There are many factors which must be considered in the case of a country such as Tanzania. However, I think that it is in the interests of this country that Tanzania should have stability and reasonable economic progress.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his policy on aid and human rights.

Our aid policy takes into account considerations of human rights and with this in mind we keep under review the situation in individual recipient countries.

Given the very serious position of refugees from the military dictatorship of Latin America, particularly Chile and Argentina, will the Minister inform the House of the legal advice given to the Government about the recent statement of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees? Will he seek, in the light of that, to change the Home Secretary's decision to end the special programme for refugees from Latin America?

I do not think that that arises specifically from the question on the Order Paper.

Although I recognise the need for cuts in the aid programme, is my hon. Friend aware that many Government supporters are concerned lest the cuts should not form part of a coherent aid strategy? Will he ensure that his Department only makes cuts which will not do long-term damage to the effectiveness of the aid programme?

We had to make a contribution this year, out of the promised aid programme, towards the Government's search for economies. That was absolutely right and inevitable. Now we must go on, exactly as my hon. Friend indicated, to look searchingly at the future level of the aid programme, its distribution and the principles which should be applied. That is the purpose of the review which is now taking place.

Has the Minister received any representations from War on Want about the damage being done in these countries to which we are giving aid by the unscrupulous advertising of powdered baby milk with the consequent death and disease which results? If he has, what does he propose to do about it?

I think that I have written to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject in the last few days. This is a complicated problem, which we are looking at. If the hon. Gentleman wants further information, perhaps he will table a specific question.

Will the human rights which my hon. Friend is reviewing in the context of the general review of the aid programme include the human rights of British subjects and institutions that have been expropriated without compensation? Will he ensure that, in future, where massive British aid is going to any country which has adopted a policy of this kind, such aid has as its first claim the compensation of British citizens and institutions?

Different situations need different handling. However, I agree that, when deciding on the distribution of our aid programme, the treatment which a possible recipient country accords to British individuals and British interests is certainly an important factor.

What representations have the Government made to recipients of overseas aid where they believe that there has been a violation of human rights?

We do not believe that it is sensible to generalise too much about human rights. We believe that it is the job of the British Government to try to make the world a slightly more decent and humane place. Where there are flagrant violations, we consider in each case how best we can improve the situation. We have done this in the case of several Eastern European countries and in the case of several countries in the developing world.