asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the Minister of State's recent tour of countries in South America.

Between 18 July and 2 August I visited the Falkland Islands, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. I spent a week in the Falkland Islands, taking careful note of the views of the islanders on their economic and political future. In Buenos Aires I had a general exchange of views on Anglo/Argentine relations, and we agreed to restore ambassadors. In Brazil and Venezuela I discussed our mutual economic and political interests with Ministers of the respective Governments and others.

Does the Minister agree that we as a nation tend to neglect the immense potential of close relationships with South American countries? Having toured that area, what prospects does my hon. Friend see of extending our trade and influence there?

I agree that it is a market of about 200 million people who are friendly and helpful towards Britain. There are great opportunities for business and every other sort of exchange. However, we must first get our production right so that we have surplus goods to sell to those important export markets.

Will the hon. Gentleman reverse the shabby decision of the Government to refuse admission to any more refugees from Chile and other dictatorial fascist regimes in South America? Is it the Government's policy that the victims of fascism must stay and suffer in their own countries?

That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, nationals of South American countries may still apply for settlement in England.

Was my hon. Friend able to form any opinion of the value attached to the BBC external services by the countries that he visited? Would it not be a good thing to retain those services?

I invite my hon. Friend to await the statement to be made tomorrow.

I know that the Minister raises the subject of human rights through British ambassadors and whenever he meets Latin American representatives. How can it be that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is able to announce a deplorable decision to abandon the special programme for political refugees? Only a few hundred people are involved, but this is important. Are we to understand that there is no liaison between the Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office? Will he pursue the matter, particularly as on the day of the announcement by the Home Secretary the Organisation of American States passed a resolution condemning Uruguay, Paraguay and Chile?

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend. The question of human rights and our reception of political refugees should be decided on an evenhanded basis throughout the world.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further initiatives he proposes to take, in concert with other Western countries, to bring about the full independence of Namibia in accordance with United Nations resolutions.

Her Majesty's Government continue to work closely with their partners in the Five for implementation of the existing United Nations plan. Our efforts at present are concentrated on securing agreement of the parties to the establishment of a demilitarised zone on the northern border of Namibia in order to enhance security during the transition to independence.

These discussions have lasted for more than two years. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that delay is leading to increased hardship for the people of Namibia and repeated savage incursions into Angola by South African regular forces?

The hon. Gentleman is familiar with the problems of Namibia and will know that earlier this year there was an impasse on one problem only with regard to the United Nations' proposals, and that was the interpretation of the proposals on security. The group of five Western nations, in conjunction with the United Nations, have been working as vigorously as possible to put forward proposals for demilitarised zones, in the hope of overcoming those anxieties.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the five demarcheé powers, including the United Kingdom, do not accept the United Nations assumption that SWAPO is the sole legal Government of Namibia?

It is the Government's view that it is for the people of Namibia to determine who should be their political representatives and who should form a Government in their country? It is up to SWAPO to play its part in any elections that may be held under United Nations supervision.

Surely the actions of the South African Government have not contributed to solving the outstanding issues that are preventing a settlement. What representations are the Government making to the South African authorities that they should not take actions that make it difficult to achieve the settlement that we all want?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to military action, I must tell him that we condemn any form of military activity, from any side. In the past we have made representations to all sides to exercise military restraint, and we continue to urge them to do so.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he plans to visit Rhodesia.

I have no plans to do so.

I hope that it will not be long before my right hon. Friend can visit Rhodesia, but what pressure are the Government putting on the Patriotic Front during the negotiations to end the civil war in Rhodesia, bearing in mind the tremendous concessions made by our Government and the Government of Bishop Muzorewa?

We are not putting pressure on anybody. We are negotiating with the Patriotic Front and with Bishop Muzorewa's delegation. It is our wish that the violence should be ended as soon as possible, and at the beginning of the conference we appealed to both parties to end violence. Bishop Muzorewa's delegation agreed to a ceasefire. Unfortunately, the Patriotic Front did not. If at the conference we gain an agreement, as we hope that we shall, it will mean an end to the violence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the British Government have not made any concession whatsoever in the entire eight weeks of negotiations? Will he also accept that the document on the constitution to which the Patriotic Front was asked to give a "Yes" or "No" answer within a few days was the same as that tabled at the beginning of the negotiations? In the discussions on the transitional stage, the Patriotic Front has been equally adamant in not negotiating on any point.

The hon. Gentleman's intervention is no more helpful than it was last week. He may know the difficulties of negotiating with two parties. It is much easier with one. In both cases our original proposals were a compromise. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the original proposals and at the final answer to the constitution, he will find that what he said is not true.

rose—

Order. This matter will come up later and a number of questions will be answered together.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

My right hon. and noble Friend had arranged to meet him in London earlier this week, but Mr. Hartling was obliged to cancel his visit. Instead, I met Mr. Hartling's deputy, Mr. de Haan.

When my hon. Friend meets the High Commissioner, will he discuss with him the urgency of achieving permanent settlement of the Indo-Chinese refugees, which is the subject of the agreement instituted by his right hon. Friend? What steps have been taken by his Department to achieve the implementation of that agreement? What has happened, and, when the commitment is entered into, what will have been achieved?

I believe that my hon. Friend is referring to the Geneva conference in July. More than 500 of the 10,000 refugees from Hong Kong intended for resettlement in this country have arrived in the United Kingdom. We expect to receive a further 1,000 by the end of the year. Those numbers are in addition to the refugees taken from the British vessel "Sibonga" and others taken under the arrangements announced by the previous Government.

Will the Minister tell the High Commissioner that the British Government, as a contribution to alleviating suffering in Cambodia, will follow their long-standing rules on recognition? We should stop recognising Pol Pot and start co-operating with the Administration that is demonstrably in control of that country.

That is another matter, which does not arise from the main question. We discussed it last week, and the responsibilities of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees do not extend to famine relief inside Cambodia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Moscow.

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

When the Minister next meets the Soviet authorities in Moscow or elsewhere, will he suggest that, instead of requiring children to leave Moscow for the Olympic Games, they should permit their citizens to leave Moscow or anywhere else in the Soviet Union now if they wish to do so? Will he suggest, in particular, that they should release from prison and from exile people like Vladimir Slepak and Ida Nudel, who find themselves in that situation only because they want to leave the country? The authorities should stop the recent alarming trend of refusing visas to Jews and persecuting Jewish people in the Ukraine and elsewhere, who advocate the issue of such visas.

On a number of occasions recently we have made strong representations to the Soviet authorities precisely on the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is regrettably true that the number of refusals to, for example, Jewish people who wish to leave the Soviet Union has increased. However, it is a welcome development that the number of applications that have been granted has also increased. We shall continue to maintain pressure on that issue.

If and when the Minister meets Mr. Brezhnev, will he indicate the Government's willingness to respond positively to the detente proposals made in East Berlin? Will he also ask him directly, if he is serious, why it is that, despite the USSR's massive military predominance and economic problems, that country continues to spend 13 per cent, of its gross national product on arms?

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point on the percentage of GNP that the Soviet Union spends on arms, and that must be a cause for concern. Mr. Brezhnev's recent announcement that the Soviet Union would withdraw a number of troops and tanks from Eastern Europe was a welcome development. I hope that it will be followed by Soviet moves to get agreement at the MBFR conference. Mr. Brezhnev's offer to reduce long-term tactical forces in Europe is also welcome, but we must recognise that his statistics conceal the fact that there has been a great deal of modernisation of Soviet tactical nuclear forces in Europe. That is why the British Government propose to proceed with Western plans to modernise our tactical nuclear forces.

Should my hon. Friend find it possible to go to Russia, will he make it clear that any attempt by the Russian authorities to dictate the terms on which we participate in the Olympics will be deeply resented in this country?

Any attempt by the Soviet authorities to dictate to us in that regard would, I believe, be out of order under the charter of the International Olympic Committee. It is for the IOC to decide whether countries meet the requirements of that charter.

to ask the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about relations with Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.

As the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is not present, I may have misled the House when I said that questions on Rhodesia would come up a little later. I therefore propose to exercise my discretion and allow further supplementary questions to question No. 9.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what latest progress has been made in preparation for the Madrid review conference.

We are continuing our regular consultations with our partners in the Nine and with other Western countries in NATO and in the Council of Europe. We have already had a number of bilateral contacts with other signatories of the Final Act, including countries of Eastern Europe, and these contacts will continue between now and the Madrid meeting.

Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity at the forthcoming Madrid conference, as well as now, to condemn in the strongest terms the action of the Czech authorities in sentencing six of their citizens to severe terms of imprisonment for doing no more than they are allowed to do under the Helsinki Agreement? What action has been taken by my hon. Friend's Department to condemn the Czechs for this, and how does he intend to ensure at Madrid that these breaches of the Helsinki Agreement are publicly and firmly dealt with?

We have taken a number of steps to make clear to the Czechoslovak authorities our revulsion at the action that they have taken against supporters of the Charter 77 movement and to show that we deplore the sentences that were passed on six members of that movement on 23 October. My right hon. Friend made this perfectly clear to the visiting Czech Energy Minister when he saw him last week. On another occasion we made our views perfectly clear to the Czech authorities bilaterally. The Government of the Republic of Ireland, acting on behalf of the Nine European Community countries, have also issued a statement expressing the deep concern of all the member States about the Czechoslovak action.

Does the Minister agree that what has happened in Czechoslovakia should be condemned, as it has indeed been condemned by the National Executive of the Labour Party? Is he aware that it seems like hypocrisy for some Tories to condemn what has happened in Czechoslovakia, while condoning tyrannies in South Africa, Chile and a number of other places?

As has been said, we value human rights in all parts of the world. There is absolutely no doubt about that.

Is my hon. Friend aware that both sides of the House feel quite strongly that this is hardly the time for us to reduce the BBC's overseas service? If, later this week, an announcement is to be made that there will be a compromise reduction, that will not give any encouragement to those of us who feel strongly about the issue. If substantial cuts need to be made in the foreign service, my hon. Friend might direct his attention to the triplication of functions that goes on in our Embassy in Washington between the three Armed Services.

I think that my hon. Friend has gone a certain distance from the original question. However, as he said, there will soon be an announcement about the BBC's external service.

We entirely share the view expressed from the Conservative Back Benches in relation to the BBC's external service, and we also share the Minister's view in condemning the recent and wholly unjustified trials in Prague. Will he particularly press on the Czech authorities the fact that their exclusion of legal and other observers from the West at those trials is particularly resented?

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Our embassy attempted to send an observer to the trial, but he was excluded. That is one serious aspect. The other serious aspect is that the accused were being tried for exercising their rights under the Helsinki Agreement—an agreement into which their Government freely entered.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what are the current arrangements governing trade with Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about Rhodesia.

In view of what you said a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, I hope that it will be for the convenience of the House if I answer this question together with question Nos. 11, 13 and 14.

rose—

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

Can my right hon. Friend confirm the date when sanctions come to an end under the present order? Can he further tell us when United Nations sanctions will end without renewal, and what steps will be necessary to amend that should, in his judgment, conditions be such that British sanctions could be lifted?

The sanctions under section 2 of the 1965 Act would come to an end on 15 November if they were not renewed. Other sanctions that do not depend upon section 2 would continue unless they were brought to an end. The United Nations sanctions continue, but, since we took the matter to the United Nations, we presume that when we lift sanctions the United Nations will follow.

Since the Government do not wish the United Nations to send observers to the elections, and as we shall need the support of the United Nations Security Council to lift mandatory sanctions and obtain international recognition of Zimbabwe-Rhodesia, what special arrangements are the Government making to keep the Secretary-General of the United Nations informed of developments during those elections?

As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary-General has been over here. We have our representatives in the United Nations, and many other countries are also interested in this matter. My hon. Friend can take it that the United Nations will remain fully informed of what is going on.

Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what proposals, if any, the Government have put forward for the control of the guerrilla forces belonging to the Patriotic Front during the period following a settlement, when Zimbabwe would be under the direct rule of the British Government?

As my hon. Friend knows, we are at present discussing the interim arrangements. Once we reach agreement on those, we shall discuss the ceasefire arrangements next week. However, it is important to proceed step by step, and we have not yet come to the ceasefire period.

Can the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the statutory instrument under which he gave immunity to the rebels from Rhodesia to attend the conference ran out last week and that he has now had to lay a further order? What procedures will he adopt to ensure that the House has the opportunity to scrutinise that order, or does he intend to cheat the House, as his officials suggested yesterday to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

Our information is that the order did not run out last week. It is a matter of ambiguity whether it runs out this week. It is all a question whether when the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords is sitting that counts as a sitting day of Parliament. That is a matter upon which I would hesitate to pronounce. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not intend to cheat the House.

If the elections are to be tree and fair, which I believe is the wish of everyone involved in this dispute, and if the ballot is to replace the bullet, does the Minister agree that it is essential that the armed forces on both sides are not exercising, or seen to be exercising, a coercive presence in Zimbabwe during the election period? Does he also agree that it is essential that there should be adequate time for the preparations for the election? If that is so, will he consider again the two-month period, which I believe, as do most people who have looked at this seriously, is too short a time for sensible and serious political organisation, particularly of those who have been excluded by exile from Zimbabwe politics for a number of years?

I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's allegation that we have been stiff-necked. Far from it. It is our intention that, provided there is a ceasefire, law and order should be preserved by the police acting under the British Government and with British police advisers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects reports to be made concerning meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers held since 27 July; and if he will report on the proceedings of the Council held on 18 September.

Reports have been made to the House on all Council meetings held during the parliamentary recess. As regards the Council held on the 18 September, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) on 22 October.

I thank the Lord Privy Seal for his reply. Will he confirm that the reports that he mentioned are, in fact, written replies to questions? When does he expect to revert to the policy of making oral statements to the House after meetings of the Council of Ministers? In respect of the Foreign Ministers' Council held on 18 September, can he tell us anything about future co-ordination of overseas aid policy? Following last night's decision, does he agree that harmonisation of our policy with that of Germany, for example, could provide problems, because it would mean a major change of policy?

Of course we shall always report to the House about these Council meetings. Whether it is an oral or written statement depends on the importance of the business to be transacted and on the availability of parliamentary time. I take note of the point which the hon. Member made in the second part of his supplementary question.

When my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues will he undertake to discuss with them serious problems facing the people of Zambia and Zaire in view of the breakdown of transportation both to the east and to the west, leaving them totally dependent upon the route to the south? This is an important matter, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give it some consideration.

It is an important matter, but I am not sure that it relates to this question.

Will the right hon. Member give an undertaking, on behalf of the Government, that the Government representative at the Council of Ministers next week will, in the national interest, block any order that seeks to extend the outward processing or free circulation of wool textiles within the EEC?

I do not think that I could give an undertaking in quite those terms. I shall consider the matter and write to the hon. Member about it.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next intends to attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers; and if he will make a statement.

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

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the Foreign Ministers of the European Common Market.

I attended a meeting of the Council in Luxembourg on Monday and Tuesday of this week.

Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking to the House and the country generally that in any negotiations that take place on the future level of the United Kingdom's contribution to the EEC budget he will not agree to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy, to the export of sheepmeat to France or to our oil supplies in the North Sea being taken as bargaining factors?

I agree that all these matters are extremely important in themselves. The fisheries problem is self-contained, as is the budget problem, and each should be settled on its merits. The same applies to the other matters that my hon. Friend mentioned. There is no common link.

When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his EEC colleagues will he impress upon them that our membership of the Common Market is increasing in unpopularity among the British people? Will he make it clear to his colleagues that unless the EEC agrees to a substantial reduction in our budget contribution at the Council meeting in Dublin the British people will expect the Prime Minister to take unilateral action to reduce our contribution?

I agree with the bit in the middle of the hon. Member's question, but I do not agree with either the beginning or the end of it. I agree with his implications that our budget contribution is far too high, and we aim to see that it is reduced so that we are in broad balance as a result of decisions which the European Council is committed to taking in Dublin.

Bearing in mind the belligerent attitude of the Prime Minister in response to the proposals by the Russians for troop reductions in Germany, can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that no talks are taking place at informal meetings of Foreign Ministers of the EEC on the harmonisation of defence arrangements within the EEC, rather than through NATO?

As the hon. Member well knows, the EEC is not concerned with defence, so that does not come into it. He is right to imply that these matters come under NATO, and they will continue to do so.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is growing understanding among other member States of Britain's problem in relation to our excessive budget contribution? However, is he aware that this excessive contribution arose exclusively from the negligence and complacency of the previous Government? Does he agree that this gives us the opportunity, in contrast to the recent surge of expressions of nationalistic opinion in other States, to take the Community forward once this crisis is resolved? One of the best things to do would be to reduce agricultural prices by 5 per cent. in the next price review.

Certainly we wish to stop agricultural prices increasing. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a growth in the understanding by our partners of our budgetary problem, but there is room for yet more growth in that understanding.

Is the Minister aware that it is really no good roaring like a lion one day and bleating like a lamb the next over this matter of the budget and the Dublin summit? This is what we have had not only from Foreign Office Ministers but from the Prime Minister herself. If the budget contribution is intolerable, burdensome and unfair to this country, will the Lord Privy Seal resolve to stop these excessive payments? Is he aware that any action that the Government wish to take to bring that about will have the full support of the Opposition?

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be reverting to the sort of behaviour that he displayed when he was in government. To give them their due, the Labour Government did nothing illegal in the matter. The right hon. Gentleman should know that to issue threats, and so on, while negotiating is absurd. The sort of approach that he is advocating yielded no dividends when the Labour Government were in power. We shall proceed in a different way.

Turning from the political issue, when my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues will he bear in mind the civilising and humane aspect of the EEC and instruct and consult his colleagues so that proper relief is given by Europe to the tragic people of Cambodia?

My right hon. Friend will be aware that Cambodia was discussed yesterday at the Council of Foreign Ministers. He will also be aware that this country has a far better bilateral record than any of our Community partners. Subject to certain budgetary allocations, agreement was reached yesterday to increase aid to Cambodia.

Is the Minister aware that this country's trade deficit in manufactured goods with the EEC Six is running at an annual rate of £3,700 million? That is additional to both the budget burden and the CAP contribution. What will the Government do to reduce the intolerable strain on our resources?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been balance of payments difficulties for a number of years. The way to gauge our trade performance with the EEC is to compare the export-import ratio of our bilateral trade with our partners. The right hon. Gentleman may be aware—although most of the House will not—that this was 83 per cent. in 1972, 87 per cent. in 1977, 86 per cent. last year and 83 per cent. in the first nine months of 1979. As the right hon. Gentleman suggests, an improvement in that performance is urgently needed. It is up to industry to take better advantages of the opportunities that are offered by the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when his right hon. and noble Friend will next meet his European Economic Community colleagues.

On 20 November at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels.

Did the right hon. Gentleman notice the article in the London Book Review of 25 October by the distinguished Cambridge economist Wynne Godley, who said that, in addition to the net transfer into the budget and the higher cost of food prices, what he called a careful estimate of our balance of trade in manufactures in 1977 showed that we were £4,500 million worse off than if we had not joined the Community? He went in to say that our real national income could have been 10 per cent. higher had we not joined, and that inflation would have been lower. In view of all that, have the Government any official estimate of the cost to our balance of payments and standard of living of our membership of the EEC?

I am afraid that I did not see that article, nor am I familiar with the publication. Therefore, I am unable to answer the question. Mr. Wynne Godley is a distinguished economist. However, his views on the EEC do not necessarily attract general agreement.

Will my right hon. Friend draw upon his experiences of meetings of the Council of Ministers and tell the House whether he can quote any decision that has been made at those meetings in the last few months that has been of particular interest to this country?

Certainly—the decision yesterday on steel aids, our agreement with the ASEAN, and so on. I do not have them all at my fingertips, but no doubt there are many.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the price of exporting British lamb to France will be the agreement to the existing sheepmeat regime? If so, how will he explain that to the housewife when prices rise?

As the hon. Lady knows, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is to make a statement on the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, which took place yesterday and the day before. However, there is no connection between the two matters to which she referred.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet other EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet his EEC counterparts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he will next meet his European Economic Community counterparts.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects next to meet the Foreign Ministers of other member States in the European Community.

I refer the hon. Members and my hon. Friend to the reply that I have just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Hicks).

Will the Minister confirm that the French ban on British lamb is helping to increase supplies for the British market and keeping prices lower than they otherwise would be? Would it not be a good idea to congratulate the French Government on protecting the British housewife much better than the Tory Government are doing and looking after the housewife's purse, while wrecking the Common Market at the same time?

The hon. Gentleman holds different views from most of us on the rule of law. We deplore the fact that the French Government have not recognised and obeyed the ruling of the European Court. We hope that they will not delay long in so doing.

As the Prime Minister said yesterday that she and the Government were going for a broad balance between our contributions and the benefits that we receive from the EEC, and as, at the moment, we are out of balance by £1,000 million, will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the target in these negotiations is a reduction in our contribution by £1,000 million? That would bring us back to a position of broad balance. If we fail to achieve that, will it not be a failure by the Government?

The hon. Gentleman has been selective in his quotation. The Prime Minister also said that she believed that it would be folly to put any figure on the amount. I confirm that she said that we are seeking a broad balance.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Council of Ministers should concentrate its discussions on new initiatives and developments in Community activities from which Britain might gain certain financial advantages to balance against our contribution to the CAP?

We shall favour anything that is likely to help us. My hon. Friend will be aware that the budget imbalance is so great that there is no possibility of removing it by introducing new projects of the kind that he has mentioned.

Is the Minister aware of the considerable dismay in sheepfarming areas at the decision of the French Government to ignore the Court's decision on the import of sheepmeat into their country? In view of the Minister's remarks that this decision will not be used as a bargaining counter in relation to other decisions, will he say what sanctions the Government intend to impose in view of the unilateral French decision?

I agree entirely with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. This is not simply an Anglo-French quarrel. It is a quarrel between France and the rest of the Community on a question of law. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will shortly be making a statement on the matter.

Does my right hon Friend find it curious that most of the objections to events in Europe by the Opposition are about the terms that were obtained by the Labour Government after the renegotiation? However, will he be fairer to the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore)? He was a member of the Cabinet which agreed to those terms, but he honourably opposed them throughout.

My hon. Friend is so double-edged that I am still trying to catch up with him. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will take my hon. Friend's compliment in the spirit in which it was meant.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that the United Kingdom will support the initiatives that are being discussed at the Council of Ministers to try to break the deadlock on Cyprus? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom will submit further proposals along the lines of the policy that has already been enunciated?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is about to visit Cyprus. The Council of Ministers has been discussing its agreement with Cyprus on economic matters and Cyprus's association with the Community, rather than the inter-communal problem in Cyprus. That matter is not being discussed by the Council of Ministers, but I agree that it is important. I had a meeting with the Cyprus Foreign Minister yesterday.

The Lord Privy Seal will know that the European Parliament is establishing a special committee to consider a common electoral system. What preparations does he wish to ask the Council of Ministers to set in train in this regard?

I do not think that at this stage we have any proposal in mind. In the first place, these matters should be discussed by the Parliament. That is the right way round.

The British taxpayer is currently spending £1,000 million a year on subsidising social problems, largely in agriculture, in richer nations within Europe. This costs the average family of four in this country £1·50 a week. France, which makes up 20 per cent. of the gross national product of the Community, puts 16 per cent. into the Community budget and takes 24 per cent. out of it. If my right hon. Friend, at Dublin, does not get significant advantages from the Council, will we deliver an ultimatum to Europe to make sure that we get a fair deal?

I have already said that I do not think threats are the best way of proceeding in this matter. I am thoroughly opposed to ultimatums, or ultimata. We have made clear, the Prime Minister above all, that the French position, as my hon. Friend says, is thoroughly inequitable. The matter was raised at Strasbourg. The Commission has produced papers showing that our figures are right. We look for a solution at the Dublin meeting.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now specify details of the £50 million cut in the overseas aid programme.

The £50 million reduction in this year's programme as planned by the previous Administration has meant both deferment and some curtailment of that expenditure. In reshaping the programme we have had to take account in particular of the heavy expenditure commitments that we inherited for 1979–80. Where necessary, discussions have taken place with recipients about revised levels or rephasing of expenditure, but it is not the custom, as the right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) will know, to provide advance details about individual programmes.

Is it not deplorable that Britain, one of the world's richest countries, should seek to resolve its economic problems by measures which, at least in part, will adversely affect the interests of some of the poorest countries in the world?

No Sir. I would not agree. If the hon. Member reads the latest development report of the World Bank he will see that the point is made that the industrialised Western countries must ensure that their own economies are strong.

Bearing in mind the vast amount of development aid that has gone from this country to most of the front-line States in Central and Southern Africa over the past 15 years, when Zimbabwe-Rhodesia has not been in a position to benefit, will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government are prepared to start a programme of substantial aid to Zimbabwe-Rhodesia as soon as there is a return to legality?

Yes, Sir. That is so. But we must await the establishment of the legal Government in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. Only when that is established can we work out precisely what is needed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what cuts he proposes in the aid programme to India.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).

Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern among hon. Members about his failure to deny in the debate last night the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart) that there would be a 40 per cent. cut in aid to India this year? Is he now prepared to make that denial? If not, is he aware that a 40 per cent. cut would create considerable economic difficulties in India, make the suffering among millions in India worse than it is already and create economic problems within our own country? Only by developing industry in India and other developing countries can we solve our own economic problems.

I am afraid that I do not have the precise percentage, but I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Discussions have taken place with the Indian Government, who understand the reasons for the cuts and have taken them with good grace.

In allocating the cuts in aid to India, will my hon. Friend bear in mind the recent report of the Select Committee on Overseas Development, which draws attention to the need to avoid concentrating our aid on capital goods? Will he bear in mind also the importance to local employment in India of aid being dispersed to smaller rural projects?

Yes, Sir.

It is with great regret that one hears final confirmation this afternoon of the cut in the aid programme to India. How on earth does the hon. Gentleman think this is compatible with the maintenance by the Government of an aid strategy to the poorest countries? Or is he proposing a new and very different strategy?

As the right hon. Lady knows, there is a review of aid going on. I should prefer to await the outcome of that review, which is an internal one within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, before making any comments about any shift in the pattern of aid.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what cuts he proposes in the aid programme to Bangladesh.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins).

Is the Minister aware that all the major Christian denominations in Scotland are compiling a petition urging the Government to raise their overseas aid figure to 0·7 per cent. of the gross national product to help such countries as Bangladesh? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that he will seriously consider the petition when he is presented with it?

Yes, Sir.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to reduce aid to countries that are spending excessive amounts on nuclear development especially those that are spending this money to get nuclear power?

I think that that is one of the factors that should be taken into account.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the effect of cuts in the aid programme on the strategy of the White Paper "More Aid to the Poorest".

As the right hon. Lady knows, current disbursements flow from commitments entered into earlier. Our immediate concern has been to adjust disbursements to keep them within the planned aid programme. We are currently reviewing the future shape of the programme.

The whole issue is becoming extremely serious. We need a much franker statement from the Government than we heard last night or that we seem likely to be given in the future. When does the hon. Gentleman propose to give us a clear statement of the changes in aid strategy that are now taking place as a result of the pretty savage cuts in the aid programme, which replace a real increase of 6 per cent. with a real decrease of 5 per cent?

While not entirely agreeing witht those figures, I think that it would be far better if there are any changes, to make them after we have considered the review that is taking place.

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reprove the printer of the Order Paper, on which the name of the questioner was misprinted? May I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that aid to Cambodia will be maintained during the present crisis?

Yes, Sir. The aid will be maintained.

Will the Minister assure the House that he will not include in his cuts the programme for matching grants to desperately poor villages, such as those in Gujerat about which I spoke to him concerning the request of the Chief Minister? The aid programme is a means of bringing help to those who need it most.

I cannot give an assurance about all matching grants. But they will be looked at most carefully.

Will my hon. Friend give us an assurance that in future aid will be given to our friends and not to our enemies?

First, when there is a deserving case we shall give aid to our friends. We shall obviously consider the second category mentioned.

Under what criteria does the Minister operate in deciding which projects are being abandoned before he discusses them with the possible recipient countries?

They are not decided beforehand. They are thought about, and discussions then take place.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his intensions concerning the programme for development education.

On 9 October I announced that the official funding by the overseas development administration of development education activities in Britain was to be progressively reduced. As a consequence the advisory committee on development education is to be disbanded.

Is not that a deplorable decision by the Minister, when his predecessor set up a good programme of development education? Is it not also deplorable, in international terms, for Germany, Sweden and many other countries to spend 10 times what we spend? The consciousness and concern of the British people will suffer. Indeed, the Third world will also suffer.

One considers all these issues as a matter of priority. The plan to spend about £9 million over the next few years must be matched against priorities such as aid to Dominica and Kampuchea. If we had not had to cut the planned programme of the Labour Party because of the economic mess, this situation would not have arisen.