asked the Lord Privy Seal if he received an invitation from the President of Mexico and the Austrian Federal Chancellor to attend the Vienna meeting of sponsors of the 1981 North-South Summit; and if he will make a statement.

No, Sir. This was a limited preparatory meeting of co-sponsors, which neither the United States no Japan nor the United Kingdom attended.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the statement by his right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary the Select Committee this morning to the effect that Britain intends to take part in the conference? Because of earlier remarks by the Government about the importance of adequate preparation for the conference, will my hon. Friend say how the British Government are to be involved in the preparation work, so that the summit can reach useful decisions on the Brandt Commission report and the North-South dialogue?

We are in close touch with the sponsors. My right hon. and noble Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the President of Mexico fairly recently. We expect that there will be a summit of between 20 and 26 countries, possibly in June next year. We expect, and would be glad, to attend any such meeting.

Does the Minister accept that the failure of the Government to produce an adequate response to the appeal by the Brandt Commission for a summit conference, and for the issue of North-South relations to be placed at the top of the international agenda, is one of the greatest sources of disappointment in a Government who have disappointed most people on most issues?

I do not agree with that, and the evidence does not bear it out. We have always made it clear that we are ready to attend such a summit, provided that it is properly prepared. That preparation is now under way.

When my hon. Friend next has contact with the President of Mexico, will he carry at the back of his mind the universal reaction of the House yesterday to the proposals for concessions to the Argentine in respect of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching things. Even with the good will that I have brought back with me, I cannot allow a different question from the one on the Order Paper.

Is there not a great danger that the discussion on the Brandt Commission will simply fall into a number of conferences in which there will be an endless series of discussions but little practical action? Would it not be a good idea to begin practical action by putting some money into the aims of the Southern African co-ordinating development committee?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development attended a conference on that subject, which I understand was useful. There is a great deal of practical work in that area taking place—more, perhaps, than has been appreciated so far. I shall be glad to send the hon. Gentleman details.

Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why he has not received an invitation, and one of the reasons why he may not receive an invitation, to attend the conference is the negative response that was published in the form of a Green Paper commenting on the Brandt Commission proposals? May I put it to the Minister that it would be of great service to the reputation of this country and would do something for the reputation of the Government if he introduced amended and more responsive proposals that the House could debate before such a conference took place?

I understand that there may be another debate on these matters before long. The statements of my right hon. and noble Friend and other Foreign Office Ministers throughout this period have shown that we want to make practical progress in these areas and that we support the many practical proposals which have been brought forward and which are making progress.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on British relations with the Republic of Korea.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Korea have traditionally been close and friendly. I hope that these relations will continue to develop in the same close and friendly manner.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Korean authorities that the execution of Mr. Kim Dae Jung, the leader of the Korean Opposition, and the implementation of sentences on other Korean dissidents after gross trial irregularities would be regarded as an outrage in Britain and that such an action would severely damage British relations with Korea?

I think that I have told the House before that we have several times told the Korean Government of our concern. The Korean Supreme Court will be considering the appeal in the near future. We are discussing with our partners in the Nine what further action might be appropriate if the sentence is upheld. We understand that the final decision in that event will rest with the president.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even Japan has threatened to break off economic cooperation agreements with Korea if the execution goes ahead? There is a letter in The Times today from the British Council of Churches which suggests that the Koreans are preparing public opinion by faking mass demonstrations for such an execution. What specifically will the Government tell the Korean authorities will happen to British-Korean relations of they carry on with the execution?

I am aware of what the Japanese Government have said. As I have tried to explain to the House before, I do not think that any further statement of intention by the Government at this time would be helpful. As I said to the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), we are considering with the Nine what further action can be taken. We have made our views plain to the Korean Government.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the Government's attitude to a request from the Federal Parliament of Canada for patriation of the British North America Act.

No request has been received. The matter is before a joint committee of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. It is also being considered by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of this House. This is, therefore, not the moment to make a statement.

As there are now grave doubts about the constitutionality of that which will be proposed to us and as there are provinces pursuing this matter in the Canadian courts, would it not be helpful for the British Government to make a statement now to the effect that they want Mr. Trudeau to get agreement in Canada before bringing this matter before the United Kingdom Parliament?

It would be constitutionally improper for me to comment on the substance of any request that might be made or on any events that are taking place within Canada.

Surely my hon. Friend will be able to make a form of comment that will take away the fear in the Canadian provinces, especially those such as British Columbia where there is a tremendous British content. Is he aware that they fear a sell-out of their nationality or the relationship that they have had with Britain for so many years because the Canadian Prime Minister wants to try to change the constitution to suit himself when he has no electoral right to do so?

Any views of that sort should be kept within Canada. It would be wrong for me to respond to whatever may be said within a sovereign independent country.

Will the Minister give assurances that if a Bill is to be introduced to the House it will not be a simple two-clause Bill with all the contentious stuff in the schedules? If he is not prepared to make a formal statement, can he not allow vibrations to emanate from his Department to supplement the vibrations emanating from this place to the effect that the issue should be tested in the Canadian Supreme Court first, and that we should proceed after that court has pronounced on the validity of the package that is to be ram-rodded through this place as well through Canada?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there are any amount of vibrations. However, I do not think that it would be right for me to comment on the views of the Canadian provinces. Nor would it be anything other than hypothetical to suggest that legal action in Canada might still be taking place if and when a request is made. If that situation arises, we shall have to consider it at the time.

Can my hon. Friend give any reson why we should pull Prime Minister Trudeau's coals out of the fire for him? Is he aware that there is a supposition in Canada that what is really behind this issue is a desire on the part of the Prime Minister to declare a republic?

It would be wrong for me to comment on the substance of any request that is made. If a request for patriation were received from the Parliament of Canada, it would be in accordance with precedent for the United Kingdom Government introduce in Parliament, and for Parliament to enact, appropriate legislation in compliance with the request. That is the convention.

Is the Minister aware that many of us would wish him to handle this matter with the utmost care and caution because we believe in maintaining the strongest possible relationships with our partners the Canadians? Has the joint consideration that I understand is taking place by the Canadian Parliament been completed? If not, when is it likely that the joint resolution—I think that I have the right form of words—will be submitted to the United Kingdom?

I gather that the issue is still before a Standing Committee of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament. The latest news is that it might be as much as two months before the consideration of the measure is completed by the Canadian Parliament.

We come next to question No. 4. It is due to a misprint in the Order Paper that the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) appears to have tabled a question on Iraq and not the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). In fact, the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet tabled a question on Afghanistan and the hon. Member for Wokingham tabled a question on Iraq.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about the latest information on Soviet troops occupying Afghanistan.

The Government's latest information is that there are 85,000 Soviet troops in Afghanistan. In addition, we believe that up to 30,000 troops based in the Soviet Union in areas near the border are involved in support of military operations inside Afghanistan. Afghan resistance continues to be strong and fierce fighting is frequently reported.

I welcome the latest United Nations resolution and the general condemnation of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan at the Madrid conference, but does my hon. Friend agree that now is the time for a continuing and persistent diplomatic campaign against the imperialist Soviet aggressors, and that he should bear in mind that this should be done in concert with practically every other country outside the Iron Curtain, including the Third world and Islamic countries?

Yes. I entirely agree with that. It is notable and perhaps remarkable that the number of counties supporting the latest resolution of condemnation was greater this year than last. The resolution invited the Secretary-General of the United Nations to appoint a special representative to deal with the matter and we hope that he will do so.

Given the large amount of Soviet troops in Afghanistan, do the Soviets still have enough troops to enable them to invade Poland, and in which case what action would her Majesty's Government—

Order Tint is also another question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on United Kingdom current relations with Iraq.

We wish to build a sound and fruitful relationship with Iraq based on mutual understanding and co-operation. We believe that the Iraqi Government also are looking for improvement in relations. We hope that any outstanding problems will be resolved.

I welcome that reply, and does my hon. Friend feel encouraged, as many do, by the clemency shown to my constituent Mr. Ned Sparkes, who has now been released? Does that encourage my hon. Friend to hope that further clemency will be shown in respect of Mr. Smith, who is still, as I understand it, imprisoned in Iraq?

That is right. The two cases are not identical, but we hope that the Iraqi Government will feel ab1e to show clemency in the case of Mr. Smith so that he can be restored to his family.

Bearing in mind the appalling treatment meted out by the Iraqi Government to their opponents over recent years., will the Minister find a way to indicate xo them that we will take a dim view of any action taken in this country by elements who support that Government against their opponents? The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are good reasons for asking the question.

Yes, Sir. It is a relevant question. We have trade our views clear to the Iraqi authorities on a number of occasions.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the considerable concern in Iraq and other parts of the Arab world about possible Western and United Kingdom Government policy towards Iran after the release of the American and British hostages? If those hostages are released, will the Government assist in the re-arming and re-equipping of Iran?

My hon. Friend will agree that that is a hypothetical question that will fall to be considered if, as we hope, the American hostages are released. There are no signs, I fear, that that release is imminent.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement on the progress of the Madrid review conference.

Her Majesty's Government welcomed the agreement on the agenda and procedures reached on 14 November, which enabled the main Madrid meeting to proceed as planned. The thorough review of implementation of the Helsinki Final Act now taking place will last until Christmas. We expect the meeting to end in March 1981.

Will my hon. Friend accept my warm congratulations on his determination, which, I understand, ensured the review of the Russian implementation or lack of implementation of the Helsinki agreement? Does he agree that Russian military intervention in Poland would be another clear and decisive breach of the Helsinki agreement, which would have serious repercussions in Madrid?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations. The co-operation between the NATO countries when trying to resolve problems of procedure was remarkable and solid. There is no doubt that foreign interference in the internal affairs of Poland would be a flagrant breach of the Helsinki Final Act. It is difficult to see how the conference could survive in such circumstances.

When the self-righteous barrage of critimism of the Soviet Union comes to an end, what positive proposals to carry forward the process of detente in Europe will be made by the United Kingdom.?

I do not accept the description of the conference implied in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. One interesting thing about the conference is that it has been conducting a serious and practical review of what has happened since the previous conference at Belgrade. United Kingdom initiatives are the subject of the next question.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he said a moment ago, but could he be a little more robust? Will the Western Powers make it plain that there can he no question of continuing the conference for a minute if the Soviet Union invades Poland?

I do not need to add to what I have just said. I made that clear. The Soviet Union is in no doubt that interference in the internal affairs of Poland would be a flagrant breach of the Helsinki Final Act. If it appears to be necessary during the conference, we shall remind the Soviet Union of that.

Will the Minister accept that on Poland one should speak with clean hands? Is he aware that there is no justification for Soviet intervention in Poland, and that those who have consistently campaigned against aggression, unlike a number of Conservative Members, would condemn any Russian aggression against Poland?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming our views.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what initiative the Government will take at Madrid towards East-West detente; and if he will make a statement on the conference.

The Government's first objective at Madrid is to have a thorough and frank review of the implementation of the Final Act by all signatory States. We shall be ready at the appropriate stage to put forward with our partners new proposals intended to achieve a substantial improvement in implementation of the Final Act, with particular reference to human rights, security, freedom of movement and freedom of infomation.

Will the Minister accept that, whatever our views about Russia, we have to live with her or die with her? Does he therefore agree that hostility to infringement of civil liberties in Russia must not be allowed to damage co-existence or detente, since war will help no one?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of avoiding war. However, one has to remember that the Soviet Union freely agreed at Helsinki in 1975 to all the clauses of the Final Act and to the fact that review conferences should take place every few years, during which we would consider to what extent the undertaking signed at Helsinki had been observed. That is what we are doing. There is no acrimony about the procedure. It is a practical review.

In the context of human rights, can my hon. Friend assure the House that the deplorable position of the 2½ million Jews in Soviet Russia is being raised by our representatives at Madrid, particularly the breaches of international obligations that the Soviets are pursuing in suppressing cultural, religious and emigration rights?

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. We have already raised the question of the many forms of blatant discrimination by the Soviet Union against Jews. We shall continue to do so as long as we consider it necessary. We have also referred to discrimination by the Soviet Union against other minorities.

Will the Minister arrange for our representatives at Madrid to remind the Soviet Union of the terrible fate of Professor Orlov and other members of the committee in the Soviet Union that was monitoring the Soviet Union's failure to observe its undertaking at Helsinki? Will they further remind the Soviet Union that, if it wishes to have detente, the release of those people will be a great step forward?

We have already specifically taken up the case of Dr. Orlov and the fate of the people who have been trying to monitor the performance of the Soviet Government's obligations under the Helsinki agreement. We may well have proposals to put forward later.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we are all primarily concerned with averting a Soviet invasion of Poland, the sabre-rattling and the barrage of propaganda already undertaken by the Soviet Union is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda that preceded the Munich agreement? Does he agree that that is totally contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the Helsinki agreement?

I entirely agree.

Is the Minister aware that there are two matters in addition to our concern about human rights that we should pursue most vigorously? First, can he assure us that the first part of the Helsinki Final Act will be discussed and reviewed, and, above all, that the guiding and dominating principle that all the participating States will refrain from the use and threat of force in their relations with each other and with countries outside Europe will be emphasised? Secondly, in the general discussions of confidence building and East-West military easement, does he consider the Madrid conference an appropriate forum to take up the tremendously important question of the SS20 and other Soviet weapons being introduced into Eastern Europe?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there are other forums in which the question of the SS20 is being taken up. It would be a departure from the Helsinki process to discuss that aspect of disarmament and arms control in Madrid, although we shall have proposals to put forward at the apropriate time about confidence building measures. We have already vigorously made the point that the right hon. Gentleman first referred to. We have gone through the 10 principles in the first part of the Helsinki Final Act and made the point that it was expressly agreed at Helsinki that the signatory countries, in their relations with all States, not only the States of Europe, would observe the principles in the Final Act.

asked the Lord Privy seal what new initiatives he is considering in order to facilitate the withdrawal of Russian troops from Afghanistan.

The Government supported the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 20 November which called upon the Secretary-General to appoint a special representative with a view to promoting a political settlemant. The Government believe that a settlement must involve the withdrawal of Russian troops and the freedom of Afghanistan to live under a Government of its choice.

Does my hon. Friend recall that Christmas Day marks the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, an anniversary which may now be celebrated by a Russian invasion of Poland? Does he think that all the talk about detente and the United Nations resolutions of the past 12 months have had any effect on Russia whatsoever? Does he agree the the West must take much more concerted action about export credits and bans on high technology and on grain sales if it is to have any influence over Russia?

I agree with the spirit of what my hon. Friend said. As he knows, certain measures have been taken in the economic sphere. As he also knows, we would have wished these measures to have been more vigorous in some respects.

What has happened to the Foreign Secretary's proposal for a neutral non-aligned Afghanistan?

The proposal has been taken up not only by the European Nine but in a slightly different form by the Islamic Congress. I think that it now represents a consensus of view in the whole of the non-Communist world. We continue to believe that only in that direction can a satisfactory resolution be found.

Will my hon. Friend again consider consulting the rest of the international community on the possibility of seeking what I might call a Zimbabwe-type solution for Afghanistan so that we can have another form of Lancaster House talks, internationally monitored elections and the voice of the people of Afghanistan being given the same freedom of expression as was the voice of the people of Zimbabwe?

We are ready to consider proposals for a conference, but those proposals must be based on the stand taken by the United Nations, not on the bogus stand taken by the Soviet Union and its Afghan satellites in their proposals of May this year.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has made to the Government of Iran over the continuing detention of Miss Jean Waddell and other British subjects without charges against them.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) on 27 November. On 28 November my right hon. and noble Friend raised this matter with an Iranian Government delegation which was visiting London. It said that the authorities in Iran hoped to have the future of the detainees settled as soon as possible.

I am grateful for the strenuous efforts which have been made on behalf of my constituent and the other British prisoners. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it was made perfectly clear to the Iranian Government that Her Majesty's Government consider the allegations of spying against these prisoners to be wholly without foundation and quite absurd? In the meantime, will he continue to press for direct access to these prisoners and make it clear to the Iranian Government that we will not tolerate indirect access to them and second-hand reports about their well-being and whereabouts?

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. We believe that these accusations are ludicrous and unfounded. They are based to so some extent on documents which anyone with any knowledge of the English language would at once see were forged.

We welcome the Minister's assurance, but will he make it clear that there is absolutely no question of a resumption of normal relations with Iran until Jean Waddell and her colleagues are freed? Will he also insist that access be given in all circumstances as soon as possible?

Yes. These are their rights under international law, and we shall continue to insist on them.

Does my hon. Friend agree that, if possible, the position of Dr. and Mrs. Coleman, the parents of a constituent of mine, is even worse in that the knowledge that we have of them is somewhat less than the scanty knowledge that we have of the other two unfortunate captives and that it becomes a matter of priority that we establish the health and welfare of these people?

My hon Friend is right. We have been trying to do this directly through the Iranians who were here and through the Swedish embassy which looks after our interests in Tehran and which includes a member of the British diplomatic service. I have been trying to find intermediaries who will take up this cause. We shall continue to press this matter in all these ways.

Will the Minister make it clear that many of us who strongly opposed the Shah's regime for its abuses of human rights equally strongly oppose the manner in which the present Iranian authorities are treating British subjects and other political prisoners? We believe that there should be a change there which breaks completely with the abuses of human rights.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. It is no use the Iranian Government sending delegations here and expecting to receive sympathy for their case in other matters if they treat our people in this way.

Can my hon. Friend not make something like a Don Pacifico speech? Why does he not tell where wretched Iranians that, unless they release these decent Christian people, we shall send back their students?

We are sending back their students, as my hon. Friend may have noticed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made with the European initiative for a settlement of the Palestinian question.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what was the result of the meeting of the Heads of State of the European Economic Community countries in relation to the Middle East situation.

The Heads of State and of Governments of the Nine reaffirmed in a statement at Luxembourg yesterday their belief that the Venice principles contain the elements for a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement. They agreed on a programme of action requiring new contacts with the parties concerned.

Is the Minister aware that there is growing support both in the House and in the country for the principle that the Palestinian Arabs are every bit as entitled to a national home as their Jewish neighbours? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that Lord Balfour made a famous declaration on Jewish national rights. Does he agree that the time has now come for perhaps a Gilmour declaration committing Europe to a stance in favour of Palestinian Arab national rights?

I do not think that would be appropriate. However, I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a growing understanding of the rights of Palestinians. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, that is one of the two main principles of the Venice declaration.

The prevailing surge of Arab disunity may give pleasure to Mr. Begin, but it is very bad news for the West. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the European Economic Community will persist with the utmost vigour in its initiative in trying to bring about a just solution of the Arab-Israeli dispute which continues to poison the whole area?

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that whatever may be the other important disputes in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli dispute has not lost its importance. As the declaration in Luxembourg yesterday made clear, Europe will continue with its efforts.

In view of the flat rejection of the Venice communiqué by both the Israelis, which was predictable, and the Palestine Liberation Organisation, which I believe shook the right hon. Gentleman rigid, would it not be more practicable to go easy on the European initiative until the noble Lord has had a chance of consulting the new Americal Administration and assumes the chairmanship of the Council of Foreign Ministers in the middle of next year?

I was not shaken rigid or otherwise. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians agreed to see Mr. Thorn, who was the representative of the Nine on this occasion, and they had long and fruitful talks. The policies of the new American Administration will be of the greatest importance. We have always made it clear that we shall wish to consult closely our American allies. There is no question of rivalry or strife between us.

But will my right hon. Friend confirm that any European diplomacy will be regarded as carrying forward the Camp David process rather than attempting to frustrate it? In that regard, obviously the perceptions of President-elect Reagan are immensely important.

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that President Reagan's policies will be of the greatest importance. We have always made clear that we have no intention of cutting across the Camp David agreement. We wish it well. How it will work out, of course, remains to be seen.

Would not one of the best ways of carrying forward the negotiation be for each side to agree on the territorial integrity of the other, and certainly to accept the right to live in peace in that area?

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. She has enunciated briefly the main principles of the Venice declaration.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what action the Five Power Group now proposes to take in the light of the rejection by South Africa of the United Nations plan for the independence of Namibia to which South Africa had previously agreed.

South Africa has not rejected the United Nations plan for Namibia. On the contrary, the Secretary-General's report of 24 November to the Security Council, issued after consultation with all concerned, including South Africa, envisages March 1981 as the target date for implementation, subject to agreement on the final arrangements for the United Nations plan at a pre-implementation meeting beginning on 7 January 1981. The Secretary-General has asked the five Western negotiating Powers to send observers. The Five will continue to use their influence to help achieve independence for Namibia.

Will the Minister say a little more about the pre-implementation meeting? Who will be invited to it, under what auspices will it be held, and where will it be held? Will that in any way hinder the implementation of full independence for Namibia in 1981?

The purpose of the meeting is to try to reach a successful conclusion to the arrangements for the implementation of the United Nations plan. It is to be held on 7 January. The precise location has not yet been agreed. The United Nations will chair the meeting, and the principal participants will be the main parties to the dispute, that is to say, SWAPO, South Africa and the internal parties. The five Western Powers will act as observers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will list in the Official Report statistics outlining the advantages and disadvantages for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Economic Community.

No, Sir. British membership of the Community is not just a matter of statistics.

I am sorry that the Minister feels unable to provide the statistics, but will he agree that any statistics on our relationship with the EEC are usually pretty disastrous? In view of this, and the fact that the next Labour Government will undoubtedly be committed to taking us out of the EEC, does he not feel that the British people should be given an opportunity to decide on our continued membership, as they may well feel at this stage that enough is enough, and that we should cut our losses and get out?

Order. The question was too long.

I did not say that I was unable to provide statistics. There are a great many. I merely said that they were not appropriate in this case. The position is that 42 per cent. of our exports go to the EEC, compared with 30 per cent. before we joined the EEC. Germany is our largest customer and there are many others. As to the next Labour Government—if we ever have one—taking this country out of the EEC, the hon. Gentleman should have a word with the shadow Foreign Secretary, who said something rather different last Monday. As for having a referendum before anything happens, I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party's policy at Blackpool was to deny the British people a referendum.

Will my right hon. Friend clarify to the House what will be the effects of cutbacks in the level of Government expenditure by this Government upon the receipts received, particularly from the regional fund, in respect of infrastructure projects and other similar concepts?

There will be no effect on the 30 May agreement, which is entirely firm. What has happened is that, as a result of the very large refunds that we secured, some Government expenditure cuts which might have been necessary have not taken place.

Is it not true that one of the disadvantages is the result of negotiations undertaken by the Prime Minister, under which the refund of our money from the EEC will be subject to decisions on specific projects by Brussels bureaucrats? Is not that one of the many disadvantages — including a massive and increasing balance of trade deficit with the EEC—that will produce a reversal of the policy at the next election?

Everything that the hon. Gentleman said is wrong. There are not disadvantages in what the Prime Minister and the rest of us negotiated in getting the refunds. The procedures whereby our money will be gained are very clear, and they will not be subjected to Brussels bureaucrats.

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered one very worrying statistic that is difficult to explain away, namely, that our balance of trade with the Community countries has swung from a surplus of £200 million in 1970 to an ever-growing deficit of no less than £3,000 million last year? That is a worrying statistic to hon. Members on both sides of the House. Can he explain that?

I can. It is implicit in what I have just said. That statistic is worrying, but it reflects Britain's Door manufacturing performance throughout the 1970s. Between 1972 and 1979, our export-import ratio in trade with the Community in manufactured goods fell by 19 per cent. With the rest of the world it deteriorated by 23 per cent.

May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to take this question rather more seriously than he is inclined to do? The country is entitled to some information about what the relative balance of advantage and disadvantage has been. Will he confirm that so far, during the period of our membership, we have paid into the Community, in budget contributions alone, over £2,000 million more than we have received?

I take this question very seriously. The right hon. Gentleman objects to my answer because he does not agree with it and it happens to be inconvenient to him, but my figures are absolutely right. We have done better in manufacturing trade with the Community than we have with the rest of the world.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what items he expects to be included in the agenda of the next Heads of Government meeting of the European Economic Community.

It is too soon to say.

Will the Lord Privy Seal agree that when the Heads of Government next meet, in Maastricht, on 23–24 March, the Community will be moving into a revenue crisis? Since the Heads of Government have already agreed that they will not increase the VAT levy, will he now tell the House that the Government will not agree to any proposals to put an import levy on oil?

The same answer applies. It is too soon to say. Various proposals on energy have been put forward, one of which includes an import levy on oil. The matter will obviously have to be examined very carefully. It might be something that would not suit us at all well, or, on the other hand, it might suit us. Until proper definite proposals have been put forward, it is much too soon for us to make up our minds.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that Turkey and the future of Turkey is of the greatest importance to the Western world? Might he not consider suggesting that a discussion on Turkey—and, indeed, the presence of the Turkish President or Foreign Minister—would be appropriate at this very difficult time for that country?

What happens in Turkey is of great importance to us all, but, as my hon. Friend knows well—none knows better—it is unprecedented for a Head of Government or a Head of State of a country which does not belong to the Community to attend the European Council.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider carefully the problem of the International Year of Disabled People? Is he aware that the European parliamentarians are most dissatisfied with the representation of the Community in this connection? Is he aware that everyone in this House is dissatisfied about it? Will he give an undertaking, as the Minister responsible, that the question will be given some sort of priority on the agenda in Europe?

I appreciate the importance of this matter, and we are considering what contribution we should make. I cannot give an undertaking about the next agenda of the European Council, because I do not control it, but I am sure that the matter will be discussed in Europe.

At the next meeting of European Heads of Government, will the question of the safety of EEC commissioners be discussed? Will my right hon. Friend make a statement at the earliest possible opportunity about the shooting of Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, which is worrying to all hon. Members?

As many hon. Members will be aware, two shots were fired at Mr. Tugendhat in Brussels this morning when he was leaving his house. I am happy to say that neither he nor anyone else was hurt, and the matter is now in the hands of the Belgian authorities.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he remains satisfied with the level of European Economic Community co-operation in foreign policy.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when next he expects to meet the President of the European Commission to discuss more effective machinery for European political co-operation.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what further proposals he intends to place before his European Economic Community colleagues for the development of a Community foreign policy.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet the foreign ministers of the European Economic Community to discuss closer political cooperation.

The Government believe that the Nine should build on the recent achievements of political co-operation by strengthening its organisation and improving its procedures.

rose—

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

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that despite the suggestions of the Foreign Secretary, no other country in the EEC has taken up any of the suggestions that he put forward regarding co-operation on foreign policy?

That is implicit. I have already answered that question in my original reply. I said that we have agreed that the organisation of political co-operation should be examined, and that is one of the questions that will be considered.

Will my right hon. Friend explain to any of my hon. Friends who may have been misled by the subtle charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that the objectives of the so-called European reform group are irreconcilable with the settled policies of this party and this Goverment, and that its activities cause grave damage to effective European political co-operation, at a time when such co-operation is desperately needed to dissuade the Russians from putting any pressure on Poland?

Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. But the charm of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) must indeed have been very subtle because the prospectus that the group put forward is not only at odds with the policies of this Government but is incompatible with our continued membership of the Community. It is, therefore, a dud prospectus. At present, political co-operation is vitally important.

In view of the deepening world economic recession, does my right hon. Friend propose to take any initiatives with his counterparts in Europe in order to obtain a positive response from the EEC to the Brandt Commission report?

As my hon. Friend said earlier, we are continuing discussions, and a number of conferences are taking place. We do not have an immediate initiative in mind within the EEC, but this is one of the matters that crops up continually.

What initiative is my right hon. Friend planning to take to strengthen political co-operation at a time when that is more necessary than it has ever been in view of the serious and dangerous trouble spots throughout the world, and when the Community has an oportunity to show to the new Reagan Administration the strength that it can achieve?

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I have outlined some of the organisational matters that my right hon. and noble Friend has suggested. As to the immediate situation, which the whole House will agree is serious, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is about to make a statement on the Luxembourg declaration.

Is the continuing sale of subsidised butter to the Soviet Union by the EEC one example of EEC foreign policy?

No, it is not. That is an unfortunate example of trade policy which, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, is opposed by the British Government.

Will my right hon. Friend urge his Foreign Minister colleagues in the EEC to urge the Argentine to get its hands off the Falkland Islands?

That is not a matter that is likely to come up quickly in our discussions on political co-operation.

Is it not a fact that political cooperation can sometimes lead to absurd conclusions. Is not one such example the decision of the Government to support the evil Pol Pot regime as the representative of Cambodia in the United Nations? Should not the Government first change their mind, and then try to persuade their EEC partners to do so?

The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not support the Pol Pot regime. We made that clear a year ago, and we do not wish to see the return of that regime.

With regard to the question of my lion. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), does not my right hon. Friend accept that there are some of us who feel that radical change is needed within the Community, and that we have not despaired of changing it?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. In fact, the so-called radical changes that were proposed in that document are incompatible with membership of the EEC.

Will the Lord Privy Seal confirm that European political co-operation has nothing to do with the European Commission, as was implied by the rather daft question of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer)?

It is true that it has little to do with the European Commission, although the President of the Commission and one or two other commissioners are occasionally present.

asked the Lord Privy Seal in what ways the Community intends to mark the effective date of accession of Greece and to welcome this further step towards greater unity in free Europe.

I share my hon. Friend's satisfaction at the accession of Greece. We shall welcome the Greeks formally early in the new year. Greek observers are already participating in most Community business.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this is the moment not only to welcome the accession of Greece to the EEC, but to point out how attractive the EEC is to other nations, in marked contrast with the Warsaw Pact?

That is true. As the House and my hon. Friend know, not only Greece but Spain and Portugal are seeking to become members of the EEC. As far as I know, no country in Eastern Europe has ever voluntarily applied to join the Warsaw Pact.

Does not the Lord Privy Seal accept that in view of the great economic problems of Greece, when it enters the EEC the availability of parts of the small social fund which are desperately needed to aid certain areas of Britain will be even more reduced?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the arrangements have been made. That is one of the subjects that will be most important in the restructuring exercise of the budget that will take place next year.

Will my right hon. Gentleman confirm that no nationals of Greece or Spain will have better rights of admission to this country in future than the people of Gibraltar?

That must almost certainly be right. Yes.