asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects the Hong Kong Government to repeal the Public Order Ordinance.

There are no plans to repeal the Public Order Ordinance, but a review has been carried out of certain of its provisions. The Public Order (Amendment) Ordinance 1980 received the assent of the Legislative Council on 4 December and will be brought into operation soon.

The Minister will be aware of the arrests under the statute that have taken place in recent years of housewives, school children, worker priests and social workers, and also of the criticism of the Hong Kong trade unions. Does he agree that it is now time to repeal this draconic measure?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. Hong Kong, just as any other country, including the United Kingdom, requires a statute about public order. In the light of one or two problems that have arisen in the past it is right to look at the existing ordinance and to repeal it where required. The new ordinance narrows the definition of a public meeting, narrows the definition of a public procession and changes the arrangements whereby one had to apply for permission in advance to hold a public meeting. That provision has been replaced by one that arranges for notice to be given of the intention to hold a procession. I think that the House will agree that that is an improvement.

Until such time as the Public Order Ordinance is repealed, will the Minister tell the Hong Kong Government to stop infiltrating and keeping secret files on organisations that are suspected of being subversive, especially when the list of suspects includes such innocuous bodies as the Education Action Group, the Heritage Society and the Hong Kong Christian Industrial Committee?

I have no information to confirm what the hon. Gentleman alleges.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any new initiatives will be taken at the United Nations by Western nations on the representation of Kampuchea in the United Nations.

The question of representation of Cambodia is unlikely to arise at the United Nations until the next General Assembly. We are not aware of any plans for an initiative by a Western country at present.

How can the hon. Gentleman defend the failure of the British Government to oppose the representation of the Pol Pot regime in the United Nations, when they have withdrawn recognition from that regime and when they accept that it was responsible for millions of deaths and for the mass suffering of ordinary people? Surely, that is an example of the Government's hyprocrisy in the conduct of foreign affairs?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we withdrew recognition from the Pol Pot regime over a year ago. But, as we said at the time, there is no necessary connection between that withdrawal of recognition and the vote at the United Nations.

Disgraceful.

We cast that vote in company with 72 other countries holding similar views, and it was carried by a substantial majority. We continue to abhor the Pol Pot regime. We do not believe that the vote that took place at the United Nations will help that regime to come back to power, nor do we wish that to happen.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a statement about British information services in North America.

We give the highest priority to ensuring that North American leaders and public opinion are correctly informed of the facts about the United Kingdom and the Government's policies. At this moment I am confident that our information services will ensure that Congress and the people of the United States are made aware of the joy and relief of this House and of the British people that the American hostages have at last arrived safe and sound in the West after their terrible ordeal.

Is my hon. Friend aware that I appreciated the quality of the British information services when my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney) and I put our Ulster case before Irish America? Is he aware also that I welcome the decision not to let that case go by default across the Atlantic? Is he satisfied that the services have sufficient resources? Why was it thought necessary to downgrade the New York post in favour of Washington?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of presenting to the United States people the true facts about Northern Ireland, and I congratulate him on the success of his recent tour. The numbers employed by the British information servicces in the United States have been reduced to some extent since 1977. However, we regard the organisation as effective. A total of 81 officers in 13 posts in the United States and Canada are engaged in information work. My hon. Friend asked about the change in staffing in New York. The head of the services in New York has been moved to Washington because we believe that it is right that he should be in close contact with the ambassador and because Washington has become an increasingly important centre for news. A senior officer is still in charge in New York.

Would it not be more effective than constantly chasing deliberate misrepresentations about Northern Ireland if we were to emphasise and document to the American public the overwhelming debt, both quantitative and qualitative, which that country, in its build-up, owes to Ulster?

That is certainly a point that we can consider. The information given to the American people and Congress by our information services covers a wide range of subjects relevant to Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is a topic that we could add.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and I were most impressed by the officers of the information services in New York and Boston? Is he aware that American journalists to whom we spoke were concerned that by downgrading the senior post in the New York office, which is what has happened in the media centre of the United States, the British Government were giving less support to the information services than previously?

I am grateful for that tribute to the British information services in the United States. We are not downgrading the importance of the activities in New York. The head of the services has been moved to Washington for the reason that I have given. A senior officer will still be in charge in New York and the numbers in New York will not otherwise be reduced.

Have the British information services in North America put out a statement deploring the help given by the American Government to the Right-wing junta in E1 Salvador and its murderous campaign against the people there?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has had any discussions with member States of the European Economic Community on the restrictions imposed by the Spanish Government at the border between Spain and Gibraltar.

The Governments of Community countries are kept informed of developments and of our views.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that as the Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals under the Treaty of Rome restrictions on the border should be clarified before there is any question of the accession of Spain to the Community?

I agree with my hon. Friend. As he knows, the Lisbon agreement reached last April has not been implemented, but we hope that it will be implemented long before Spain joins the Community.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that the failure of the Spanish Government to abide by the Lisbon agreement is unacceptable? Should not the Foreign Office use the opportunity of negotiation with the Spanish Government on the EEC to persuade the Spaniards that they must keep the promises made at Lisbon?

Of course we hope that the Lisbon agreement will be implemented before long. We certainly hope that it will be implemented long before the EEC negotiations are completed.

Will my right hon. Friend be specific? Are we to understand that so long as the restrictions are imposed by the Spanish Government the British Government will feel compelled to object to and resist the accession of Spain to the EEC?

On many occasions I have said that the idea of two countries in the EEC with a closęd border is unthinkable. I am sure that it will not come to that.

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

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

Her Majesty's Government are deeply disappointed by the failure to achieve agreement on a date for a ceasefire in March leading to independence for Namibia by the end of 1981. It proved impossible at the Geneva meeting to reach agreement in view of the statement of the delegation led by the South African Administrator General that it was "premature" to agree on an implementation date. This is an especially regrettable setback after the great efforts of the United Nations, the Western Five and the front-line States to meet the reasonable concerns of South Africa and the internal parties. We support the chairman's closing appeal to those concerned to reconsider their position. The Five will review the position with the other participants in the negotiations and we shall discuss the problem with the new American Administration. Meanwhile, the progress made so far in preparing the ground for a settlement should not be thrown away.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are grateful to him and his officials for their sterling efforts in attempting to achieve a satisfactory conclusion at Geneva? Is he aware that the resulting failure at Geneva has encouraged the Soviet Union to continue to support Cuban forces in Angola?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remark. I believe that any failure to reach an agreement is a setback for the people of Namibia and for all the surrounding States, including South Africa, and for the West. The only people who stand to gain from discontent and violence are the Soviet Union and its satellites.

What pressures are the British Government bringing to bear on the South African Government, particularly in view of their general soft approach to South Africa, epitomised by the Prime Minister's statement that her desire is to bring South Africa in out of the cold?

The British Government have been working closely with the four Western Powers to persuade all the parties to compromise and reach an agreement. We should not underestimate the progress made over, admittedly, a long time. We should not underestimate the extent to which the gap was closed—until last week's setback.

Is my hon. Friend aware that although, of course, there is disappointment at the failure to reach agreement, there would have been a great deal more disappointment among many if an agreement had been reached that led to a SWAPO Government taking over Namibia? Does he agree that the South African Government have made their position clear, namely, that they will not accept United Nations' sponsored elections until the impartiality of the United Nations has been established over a prolonged period? Does he accept that to suggest anything else is, to say the least, misleading?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend shares our objective of stability in Southern Africa. I am sure, too, that he believes, as the Government do, that one of the best ways to achieve stability is by free and fair elections and that it is not for us but for the people of Namibia to choose their Government. That is the best way to achieve stability in that part of the world.

I offer my support to the hon. Gentleman, as he is supporting a bipartisan policy on Namibia. In answer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), does he agree that responsibility for this tragic breakdown rests unequivocally with the Government of South Africa, who clearly went to Geneva intending to wreck the conference and in bad faith, and that the SWAPO organisation, on the contrary, showed great flexibility and moderation in seeking to relieve the United Nations of its responsibility for recognising SWAPO as the only representative of the peope of Namibia?

If the right hon. Gentleman does not regard it as too patronising coming from me, may I first congratulate him on his new position?

Given that we shall almost certainly see an increase in terrorism against the Ovambo people by SWAPO guerrilla forces, can my hon. Friend give us any indication of the support role played by the Cuban, Russian and East German forces in Angola in helping those SWAPO forces to train for such attacks?

As my hon. Friend, who knows that area very well, will know, the Soviet Union and her satellites will always seek opportunities where they are available. The evidence is that a large number of Cuban troops, indeed thousands, are present in Angola. I believe that until we get a settlement that situation may well persist.

Is the Minister aware that the constructive approach that he adopts in these matters would be strengthened if he responded more robustly to his right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)? I should be very concerned indeed if the Government shared the right hon. Gentleman's objectives in these matters. Can the Minister say what the next stage is with regard to the five Western Powers sitting down together to consider what initiative they can next take?

I believe that my right hon. Friend and I would both like to see stability in Southern Africa and would not like to see the Soviet Union and its satellites exploiting the situation there. However, we may have some disagreement on how we can best achieve that. I think that it is perfectly reasonable that we should debate this in the open.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he has received the views of the Falkland Islanders on the various alternatives that were placed before them recently; and whether he will make a statement.

At a meeting on 7 January the Falkland Islands Legislative Council passed the following motion:

"While this House does not like any of the ideas put forward by Mr. Ridley for a possible settlement of the sovereignty dispute with Argentina, it agrees that Her Majesty's Government should hold further talks with the Argentines, at which this House should be represented and at which the British delegation should seek an agreement to freeze the dispute over sovereignty for a specified period of time."

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but in this new situation the probability is that no solution will be reached for some considerable time. If that is so, what plans has he to aid the Falkland Islands? Does he agree that if no such aid is forthcoming the situation might be resolved in Argentina's favour by the continuing economic problems at present facing the islanders?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not altogether accept the premise of his question. I do not think that it is necessarily true that nothing will happen for a long time. Apart from anything else, the Argentines have been pressing for developments. I therefore think that it is premature to answer substantively my hon. Friend's question about aid, although he knows that we are committed to supporting the Falkland Islands in every practicable way.

What plans do the Government have for the future of the islands? Are the people there—fewer than 2,000—to be condemned, like Muhammed's coffin, to be suspended between Heaven and Hell?

The whole point of our talks with the Argentines is to provide a secure future for the Falkland Islanders.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that without the wholehearted support of the people of the Falkland Islands there will be no sell-out to Argentina? Does he agree that there is great potential in the Falkland Islands—possible oil and great fishing reserves? Will he consider aiding the Falkland Islands financially in regard to communications, particularly with the extension of their airport? If that were done, there would be no problem at all in dealing with Argentina.

We have many times made it clear that the interests of the Falkland Islanders are paramount, so there can be no question of a sell-out. As my hon. Friend knows, extension of the airport will be very expensive, I have nothing to add to the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister of State gave.

In the light of the resolution passed by the Falkland Islanders, will the Government withdraw the proposed lease-back suggestion from the agenda for any discussions that they may have with the Argentine Government?

It is not on the agenda at the moment, so it does not have to be withdrawn. All that we shall be discussing for the moment is the freeze.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the Madrid conference to review the Helsinki agreements.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the Helsinki review conference taking place in Madrid.

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the progress of the CSCE discussion in Madrid.

During the first part of the Madrid meeting there was a thorough and frank review of the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act by all signatory States. Among the issues to which particular attention was paid were the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the repression of monitoring groups in the USSR and the deteriorating Soviet record on human rights. The Madrid meeting reconvenes on 27 January to discuss new proposals for improving the implementation of the final act, and to draft a final document.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that considered reply, but will he confirm that after the six-week session adjourned for Christmas, the senior United Kingdom representative at that conference was quoted as saying, with the greatest regret, that not the slightest step forward had been taken? If the USSR refuses to abide by the Helsinki declaration, which I understand includes a commitment to convene a further review conference in two years' time, will Her Majesty's Government seek a united response from Western countries, including EEC countries, which will not necessarily exclude using certain trade and economic measures?

We are already taking certain trade and economic measures vis-à-vis the Soviet Union in the context of the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that my hon. Friend has correctly quoted Mr. Wilberforce, who was at that time leading the British delegation. It is true that the Russian altitude, although it has not been very acrimonious, has not been very constructive about the prospects of the USSR fulfilling the agreement more effectively. We have already put forward new proposals, which will be discussed on the resumption of the conference on 27 January, and we hope that the Russians will show a more constructive attitude then.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his fine speech at Madrid and the firm stand that has enabled the Soviet Union and its allies to be held to account for their continued abuse of human rights. Will my hon. Friend pursue an agreement within the Helsinki process for the prevention of the abuse of psychiatry for political purposes?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his first remarks. The proposals that we have put forward, with our friends, include proposals on the better observance of human rights, and I have no doubt that the very important question of the abuse of psychiatry will come up.

Now that the Government have renewed negotiations with the Soviet Union for extended trade credits, does that mean that the process of détente and the CSCE will be continued? If so, will the Government take seriously the proposals tabled by France and the Soviet Union for a European disarmament conference?

I am not sure that we have proposed that credits in favour of the Soviet Union from the Government should be renewed. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we discontinued them when the Labour Government's agreement expired. We have taken the view that the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan delivered a serious blow to detente, and if the Soviet Union continued to behave in that manner detente could not survive. The proposals by France and the Soviet Union for a conference on disarmament are different. We have supported the French proposal, which envisages the improvement of confidence-building measures over the whole of Europe. We shall examine the Soviet proposals, but they seem to us at present to involve declaratory statements rather than practical steps.

Why are the discussions taking place at all when so many brave souls, such as the distinguished Czech playwright, Vaclav Havel, and many others, are being persecuted and are in prison for accusing their Governments of not observing both the letter and the spirit of the Helsinki accord? What protests are we making in Madrid about the treatment of such people, who have committed no crime but are merely witnesses to the truth?

Absolutely nothing.

The Government take the view that the Helsinki process inaugurated by the Helsinki Final Act is a useful one in the interests of the West. The evolution of events in Eastern Europe since then shows some confirmation of that. It is true that terrible abuses of human rights continue, but the continuation of the Helsinki process gives us the opportunity to draw attention to those abuses in a public manner. We have been doing that at Madrid, and we have received many letters of congratulation on the stand that the Government have taken. We should continue to draw attention to this matter when the conference resumes.

Will the Minister confirm that that statement is very different from the posture of the Conservative Party at the time of the Helsinki Final Act; that the Madrid conference allowed him to raise matters of human rights, and has provided the opportunity for the Prime Minister's U-turn on trade; that his Department's policy follows Lord Trevelyan's dictum that we should continue the dialogue with the Soviet Union at all opportunities, on all issues and at all times; and that the Foreign Office has finally abandoned the cold war posturing of the Prime Minister?

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who is normally fairly sensible, seems to have gone off the rails, especially towards the end of that question. There has been no U-turn on trade. What we said after the invasion of Afghanistan was that trade that was in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the Soviet Union should continue, in spite of Afghanistan, but that we would support the measures that the United States Government were taking in relation to grain, that we would tighten the rules about the export of high technology to the Soviet Union, and that we would not renew the credit arrangements that the Labour Government made in favour of the Soviet Union.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his sterling performance in Madrid. Does he consider that perhaps one of the most effective ways in which to help the cause of human rights in Russia would be to increase Government expenditure on the overseas services provided by the BBC? There is considerable evidence of the effectiveness of those services, as a function not only of defence, but of helping the cause of human rights, as my hon. Friend will see when he reads the recent reports, particularly in the Financial Times, to the effect that the Russians spend a large part of their resources every year on trying to jam those broadcasts.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. I agree with him about the importance of the overseas services of the BBC. We considered that in view of the need to cut public expenditure the BBC external services could not be entirely exempt from cuts, but we are spending a good deal more on them than was being spent two years ago. It is our intention to do the same next year. That will mean an improvement in the reception of those services in general.

At Madrid, will the Government take the initiative over arms reduction? Will they respond to the proposals made by Mr. Brezhnev last month, or will they continue to dance the eternal minuet, in which each side retreats as the other side advances an offer?

The Helsinki forums have not so far been the forums in which we have discussed arms reduction. We have discussed confidence-building measures, and I think it right that we should continue to do that when the conference resumes. Whether at a subsequent stage we should go on to the question of arms reduction is an entirely different and important matter. We must bear in mind that there are many other forums in which arms control and arms reductions are being discussed.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what recent discussions he has had with the Palestine Liberation Organisation.

Ministers have not had discussions with the PLO. Sir John Graham, a deputy under-secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, met Yasser Arafat on 2 December in Beirut during a routine and fully authorized tour of the Middle East in order to hear at first hand the PLO's views and to explain our own.

Did the hon. Gentleman make it clear to Sir John that the British Government could not expect much progress to be made in such talks unless and until the PLO renounced its oft-repeated intention to try to eliminate the State of Israel?

There are two basic facts. One is that the PLO enjoys a lot of support on the West Bank and in Gaza. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman indicated, it will have to move a considerable distance in accepting the existence and right to security of Israel before there can be a peace settlement. That seems to us a good reason for having additional contacts with it.

Does the Minister accept that the idea of constant consultation will be welcome to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and that no final settlement is possible without the inclusion of the PLO in whatever agreement is arrived at?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the PLO will need to be associated in one way or another with discussions before there can be a durable settlement. That was the position taken by the Heads of Government of the Nine at Venice.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there cannot be a lasting peace in the Middle East without the recognition of Palestinian as well as of Israeli rights? The PLO represents the great majority of Palestinian opinion. Therefore, is it not sensible and obvious that talks with the PLO should be speeded up?

My hon. Friend is really paraphrasing the two main principles of the Venice declaration. The Council of Ministers of the EEC yesterday gave the Dutch Foreign Minister a mandate to continue discussions based on those principles and on the analysis just put forward by my hon. Friend.

Will the Minister accept that one great obstacle to negotiations over the Palestinian problem might be removed in July when a new Government take office in Israel, a Government who reject Mr. Begin's claim to the so-called biblical lands, and that it is desirable that the other great obstacle to negotiations should be removed by the PLO's renouncing its commitment to the annihilation of the State of Israel?

I have said that we see a need for the PLO to move a considerable distance. The right hon. Gentleman would not want the Government to take sides in Israeli politics. We pay attention to the views of all Israeli leaders.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that while the aims of the PLO remain unchanged, there is a far greater readiness now to achieve them by negotiation rather than by force?

There have been negotiations, mainly in private conversations, to that effect. What is now needed is for the PLO to move some distance in public, and for the Israelis, in their turn, to accept that it will not be possible to settle the future of the West Bank and Gaza without the participation of the Palestinians.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he intends to make a statement concerning the matters discussed at the European Economic Community Foreign Affairs Council held on 19 and 20 January.

The member States agreed to the appointment of Mr. Poul Dalsager to take the place of the late Mr. Gundelach.

Will the Lord Privy Seal tell the House whether the British budget package was discussed? Can he go further than his written answer of 19 December, which says that the return package is to be distributed among a number of sewage works, telephone exchanges and bypasses throughout Britain? Does that package have to be approved by the Council, and when will the full programme be announced to the House and to the people of Britain?

No, it was not discussed because things are moving satisfactorily at present. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we received the first advance of nearly £100 million last year, and the programmes that have been put forward by the Government are being considered. We expect to receive 80 per cent. of our refund under article 235 by the end of the financial year, and 75 per cent. by refund under the financial mechanism.

Bearing in mind that there appear to be increasing tensions between the Polish Government and leaders of the Solidarity union, did the Council discuss yesterday what further measures the EEC might take to ease some of the immediate economic difficulties of the Polish people?

I do not think that it did so yesterday, but, as my hon. Friend knows, there were discussions at the previous Council, and there have been discussions in between council meetings, whereby the programme of food aid to Poland was agreed. We have probably agreed—depending on how it is spent—on the sum of £15 million, and there have been other discussions about further aid to Poland.

Will the Lord Privy Seal tell the House whether the opportunity was taken to discuss the supply of arms to Iraq and Iran, since one of the Tehran Government's reasons for releasing the hostages was the hope that it might stimulate tha flow of arms and spare parts? Will the Government take every opportunity to persuade our EEC colleagues not to supply arms to either country in the present situation?

The right hon. Gentleman will have seen the communiqué that was issued after the meeting on political co-operation, which referred to the hostages, but not to arms sales.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what initiatives he proposes taking to achieve closer co-operation with his European colleagues in foreign policy; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. and noble Friend has made a number of suggestions for the strengthening of foreign policy co-operation. I refer my hon. Friend to his speech at the Ubersee club in Hamburg on 17 November, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House.

In the context of the European initiative for the Middle East, is it not a fact that any possible solution will have to involve a settlement of the questions of Palestinian refugees and the occupied territiries? Is it not therefore sensible and logical for the European countries to recognise the PLO as the legitimate spokesman for the Palestinians, as has already been done by more than 100 countries?

As my hon. Friend will have heard, my hon. Friend the Minister of State has just been dealing with questions of that sort. The Government recognise only States. We do not recognise organisations such as the PLO. However, we made it clear in the Venice declaration and since that we strongly believe that the PLO cannot be excluded from the peace process.

Is the Lord Privy Seal aware that his reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle) was rather like saying that yesterday was Tuesday and the communiquésaid nothing about Wednesday? Will he answer the question that was put to him, particularly now that the hostages have been released? Will he assure the House that the Government will use their influence inside the Community to ensure that no Community countries supply arms to the combatants in Iran and Iraq until a lasting peace is established?

I cannot speak for Community countries, but I can speak for us. There have been no sales to Iran, including the Kharg, since November 1979, and all sales will remain subject to customary licensing procedures. Future applications will be considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances, including the situation in the area that relates to war and our relations with Iran.

Will my right hon. Friend be discussing with the European countries the removal of sanctions against Iran by all member countries? Before trade can be resumed, will he discuss with them the need for the return of the British citizens who are being held illegally in Iran? Does he agree that it is in the common interest of Europe and the West as a whole that our future relations with Iran should prevent that great and important country from slipping either into chaos or under the Iron Curtain?

I am sure that the whole House will agree with the concluding words of my hon. Friend. He will appreciate that sanctions were imposed in the context of the American hostages, and will be lifted immediately. Of course, like my hon. Friend, the Government attach the greatest importance to the release of the four British people who are detained in Iran. We hope that that will take place soon.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that closer political co-operation would be facilitated if there were an effective permanent secretariat attached to the Council of Ministers? Are the Government still pressing that case, and if so, what response have they had to it?

The hon. Gentleman knows that my right hon. and noble Friend has put forward that suggestion on one or two occasions, notably in his Hamburg speech. We think that it would improve political co-operation. There are different views about it in the Community, and a general view has not yet been formed.

Even though, as my right hon. Friend said, it has now been agreed with our European partners that the sanctions that were imposed last year by this House and by other countries should be lifted, will he assure the House that not only this country, but other countries, too, will pay the greatest regard to the export of military hardware to Iran unless and until we get our four prisoners home?

That is not particularly relevant to the release—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] There is a clear distinction between the position of our detainees and that of the American hostages. The common factor is that neither group should have been detained in the first place. Apart from that, the Americans have been engaged in a long bargain with the Iranians to get back their hostages. We do not believe that there should be a bargain. We believe that the detainees should be released forthwith.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress he expects to make in the next six months in achieving fundamental and substantial reforms in the European Economic Community.

Under the agreement reached on 30 May 1980 the Commission is due to submit the results of its examination of Community policies, aimed at preventing the recurrence of unacceptable situations, by the end of June 1981, and the Council of Ministers will no doubt have a preliminary discussion on this shortly after it is submitted. Meanwhile, we are having informal contacts with the Commission and with our Community partners.

Since the British housewife is forced to pay about £ 1,500 million each year over and above the cost of supporting our own agriculture, and since, according to The Times, New Zealand could increase its agricultural production and produce goods at prices that would be half of those ruling under the CAP, without a single penny of capital expenditure, will my right hon. Friend take whatever measures are necessary to ensure that Britain can go back to a system whereby we can get food at world market prices, to the considerable benefit of the poor, the elderly and the disadvantaged in the country?

I do not accept my hon. Friend's figures. As he realises, he is asking us to leave the Community. It is much better to say so than to put forward a demand that cannot conceivably be granted.

When the Government consider these matters, will they look at the absurd arrangement whereby agricultural prices are fixed in green currencies and not in real money? Does the Foreign Office realise that the British consumer is paying not only an import tax on food imported from outside the EEC, such as New Zealand butter, but a 13½per cent. tax on food imported from the EEC? When will the Government revalue the green pound?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the absurd system. While he was at the Treasury he did nothing to change it. Under his Government the green pound went down to 45 per cent. less than its value, with great damage to our farmers. At the moment the positive MCAs that we have add about 2·25 per cent. to the food index and less than 0·5 per cent. to the whole retail price index.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this country had a trade surplus with Europe last year and that, whatever negotiations he undertakes to reform the shortcomings of the Community, he will not endanger the substantial benefits that this country gains from membership of the Community?

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is also the case, as I have several times emphasised to the House, that our performance in manufacturing, which has not been good all over the world, has been relatively better in our trade with the EEC than it has with the rest of the world.

As the Government are alleged to be united in making cuts in Government expenditure, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what has been the extent of the cut in our EEC expenditure to date, and what cut he envisages in the future? Will he accept that this is a cut that the House and the country would like to see? People want that expenditure to be cut drastically.

I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been over the past nine months, but it was announced on 30 May that we had succeeded in cutting our contribution both this year and next by two-thirds respectively about £700 million and £800 million.

asked the Lord Privy Seal where he expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the future development of the Community.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what items Her Majesty's Government are seeking to have placed on the agenda of the next meeting of the European Economic Community Foreign Ministers.

asked the Lord Privy Seal when he next expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss harmonisation of European Economic Community affairs.

I next expect to meet my Community colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council on 16 and 17 February. It is too early to say what topics will be discussed.

When the right hon. Gentleman meets his counterparts, will he impress upon them the disenchantment of the British people with the political control imposed upon us by the Treaty of Rome? I make no mention of the disastrous economic consequences of our membership of the EEC, about which questions have been asked this afternoon. Will the right hon. Gentleman begin to move towards a fundamental change of the Treaty of Rome, so that we can have a much looser federation with Europe?

We do not have a federation, either tight or loose, with Europe, and we are not aiming to have one. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the word from. The EEC is a collection of nation States. We have accepted no greater controls on us than either France or Germany have accepted. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that France and Germany behave as if they have lost national control over their destiny? Of course they do not, and nor do we.

Is not harmonisation a none too subtle erosion of the powers of any United Kingdom Government? If, for example, a future Government wanted to take measures to reduce the level of unemloyment, would they be seriously inhibited or stopped by measures taken at Brussels under the Treaty of Rome? When one gets down to it, is not the only answer to follow Labour's policy and get out of the Market?

No, because, first, harmonisation is not an erosion of sovereignty. In some cases it is sensible, and in others it is not, but it has nothing to do with sovereignty. Secondly, Governments are not inhibited by the EEC in general in taking steps to reduce unemloyment. Thirdly, if we left the EEC it would have a catastrophic effect on jobs.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the objectives of the Treaty of Rome is the free movement of labour? In view of the imminent or actual enlargement of the Community to include Greece, the very welcome possible inclusion of Spain and Portugal, and in view of the current agreement with Turkey, does he agree that this is an objective that should be re-examined, in the best interests of all the members of the Community, to avoid the possibility of damage being done to any member of the Community in years to come?

I do not think that that is right. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, there are transitional arrangements with Greece, so that there will be no full movement until, I think, 1988. No doubt similar arrangements or provisions will be made in the Treaty of Accession for Spain and Portugal.

Has the Lord Privy Seal kept his EEC counterparts advised of the part that the Government have been playing in trying to seek a settlement in Namibia? Will he confirm that, in the discussions before the Geneva conference, the South Africans accepted the principles for the agenda, and that the failure to sign an agreement is a massive breach of faith? Will he, therefore, discuss with his European counterparts ways in which United Nations mandatory sanctions can be applied to South Africa?

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question must be "No". It must be sensible to have a breathing space while the Reagan Administration consider their policies on Southern Africa.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the right kind of harmonisation for us to emphasise in the coming years is that which enables all countries and all industries, including British industries, to do more trade in the other member States? I am thinking here of the financial industries of Britain. Will the Government press, for instance, for better terms for harmonisation in the insurance industry?

I agree with my hon. Friend. Insurance is a good case in point and, as he knows, we are particularly interested in it.

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that a Common Market of 12 members, including Spain, Greece, and Portugal, will be very different in character from the original Common Market of six members set up in the 1950s? Is there not now a case to repeal the Treaty of Rome, which is ever irrelevant and inflexible, and replace it with a much looser economic arrangement that takes fully into account the differing problems and needs of the different countries of Western Europe?

No, I do not think so. I accept that a Community of 12 members is almost certain to be very different from a Community of six members. To suggest that we should repeal the Treaty of Rome is, if I may say so, frivolous. It would be an enormous undertaking and contrary to this country's national interests and those of the Community. We have no intention of doing so.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what discussion there has been amongst Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community on Community relations with Japan.

The Community's relations with Japan were most recently discussed by the Council of Ministers on 25 November 1980. The Council adopted a declaration calling for a wide-ranging dialogue between the European Community and Japan, but making it clear that in order to promote such a dialogue there should first be effective moderation in Japanese exports and a clear commitment by the Japanese Government to a substantial and early increase in imports of Community products.

In view of the importance of our trading relationships with Japan, will my right hon. Friend report to the house on the outcome of the dialogue recently held by Sir Roy Denman under that directive? Will he ensure that if the process of that dialogue was perhaps not as harmonious as it might have been, care is taken on future occasions so that we do not lose valuable ground?

We do not want to lose any valuable ground. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I should not comment or report on particular meetings between officials of the Community and other countries. We hope that the Japanese will reply fairly soon to what was said in the autumn, and we look forward to a satisfactory dialogue with them.

Will the Lord Privy Seal assure the House that the Community will act as a community in relation to Japan, and that Japan will not pick off individual nation States? Will the Community hold a concerted policy on microelectronics and on energy in particular?

That will be discussed. I agree that when the Community acts as a community it has greater strength. However, I have already made it clear that Britain could not accept any arrangements that were less effective than those already in our possession.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the secondary effects of NALGO's industrial action against the London borough of Wandsworth".

The hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he might seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the secondary effects of NALGO's industrial action against the London borough of Wandsworth".