asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many fishing vessels have been boarded by fisheries protection personnel in the Falkland Islands conservation zone since 1 February; and if he will make a statement.

Seventy-four fishing vessels have been boarded by fisheries protection personnel in the Falkland Islands interim conservation and management zone between 1 February and 12 March 1987.

Does the Secretary of State agree that although fishery protection is important to the Falkland Islands economy, the broader issue of conservation is even more important for ecology? Does he agree that one should avoid the over-fishing that has taken place in the north Atlantic and resulted in the migration of seals to the Norwegian inshore fishing grounds? Are the current licensing system and the protection that is afforded sufficient to take regard of that, and will the right hon. and learned Gentleman sponsor a form of international symposium to ensure that the Falkland Islands get the best possible advice on the subject?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for what we are doing. The fishery protection arrangements were established precisely to meet the conservation case that he has put. It is a matter of satisfaction to him and the House that the system is working as well as it is. Obviously, we would like to see that extended into a multilateral basis, and that is why we started our initial search for arangements through the Food and Agriculture Organisation and would still be ready, if we could, to move to multilateral arrangements.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall the whingeing, cringing predictions of international conflict and disaster by the Opposition Front Bench when the zone was first introduced? Has the zone not been fully justified and has not the Government's policy earned the thanks of the Falkland Islanders and the British people?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of that. There were, indeed, doom-laden predictions from the Opposition Benches, supported by the now benignly smiling hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) on the Opposition Front Bench. Again, it must be a matter of satisfaction to the House that the arrangements have been put in place and have worked as smoothly and well as they have done.

May I say that I have the greatest admiration for the skippers and crews of the elderly stern trawlers which are carrying out the police work? However, what consideration has been given to the replacement of those elderly vessels by, for example, two newly constructed fisheries replacement vessels of the sort built by Fergusons, which just happens to be in my constituency?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest in that aspect of the matter. The main thing is that the vessels and aircraft selected for the task have been able to carry it out effectively, entirely in line with the normal pattern of fisheries promotion, with the granting of 100 licences to 50 vessels so far and a substantial revenue accruing to the system. No doubt the question of prolongation of the life or substitution of the vessels will be borne in mind by those responsible.

I am sorry to see the Secretary of State following his Back Benchers in jumping so prematurely to conclusions after only a few months' operation of the zone. As the Government have always said that the unilateral zone is a temporary measure, when does the right hon. and learned Gentleman expect the United States-inspired contacts between Britain and Argentina—I know that I must not call them talks—to result in a bilateral or, better, a multilateral agreement, which is the way in which any two civilised Western democratic countries ought to be concluding an agreement, instead of what is still a nerve-racking and tense arrangement that could flare up at any time?

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman lives in lively expectation of that event, if only to fulfil his doom-laden forecast. I am not suggesting that he would like it for the sake of warlikeness. On experience so far, he has been shown to have made some extremely foolish and ill-founded predictions. Of course it is right to say that we want a multilateral rather than a unilateral arrangement. It is precisely that that we are seeking. It is on that basis that ideas are being exchanged. There is no secret about that. We are now awaiting a response to the ideas that we have put forward. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his care for arriving at a sensible conclusion, will recognise that here particularly it is most important to follow a step-by-step approach if we are to ensure the establishment of a proper basis of understanding.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress at the arms control negotiations in Geneva.

The seventh round of the Geneva nuclear and space talks has been extended to allow further discussion of the United States draft INF treaty tabled on 4 March. The chemical weapons negotiations resumed on 3 February. We hope that it will be possible to build on the encouraging progress made last year.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted the desperate Houdini tactics being adopted by the Leader of the Opposition in a vain attempt to satisfy the negotiators at Geneva and the voters of this country that his party is no longer unilateralist? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it proves that the firm defence policy that is being followed by the Government will produce effective, verifiable progress towards genuine disarmament?

Like my hon. Friend, I am driven to speculate about the implications of reports in today's press about shifts in the position of the leader of the Labour party, suggesting that the Opposition are moving towards support for a zero-zero position. If indeed that is happening, one must, however belatedly, welcome the Opposition's attempt to evade the consequences of their previous disastrous policy. The logic of the Opposition's position of one-sided disarmament would be to speed up the removal of cruise missiles to encourage Mr. Gorbachev to remove the SS20s. The recognition, if it be the case, of the wisdom of keeping cruise missiles in this country to achieve success in the negotiations reveals the foolishness of the whole unilateralist approach.

Have Her Majesty's Government been consulted about the suggestion that American Pershing 2 missiles, which will be covered by the INF agreement, might not be removed but converted into shorter range systems? Since anything that can be converted can be reconverted, what are the implications for the difficult verification issues arising out of the agreement?

It is because of the importance of the verification issues that the verification provisions in the draft treaty are themselves so important. It is because of the scope for variation in the capacity of the SS21s and the SS22s on the Soviet side that it is so important to achieve proper constraints on shorter range intermediate nuclear weapons. Among the constraints, the right to match, as well as everything else, has always been open to consideration.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, put in succinct terms, there would be no progress in the various talks if the Opposition's policies on these matters were to be pursued? None the less, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that progress in the various negotiations is disappointingly slow? Is there no chance, perhaps with the help of our American allies, of being even more firm about these matters and getting the processes somewhat speeded up?

I can understand my hon. and learned Friend's impatience for quick headway in the matter. He must acknowledge that, in matters of such complexity where verification and constraints on shorter range intermediate nuclear weapons are of crucial importance, it is far more important to be right than to be speedy.

Will the Home Secretary explain why the Government have changed their mind on the zero-zero option by now wanting an agreement on short-range nuclear weapons while reaching an agreement on the INF instead of in subsequent negotiations, as was the Government's position between 1981 and 1986?

There has been no change in the Government's position. If one looks back at the statements in the series of communiqués, one sees that it has always been regarded as important to secure proper constraints on the shorter-range intermediate nuclear weapons as part of the initial agreement, and, beyond that, to secure a commitment to a further round of negotiations for the rest.

Although there is now, fortunately, real hope of progress with regard to the INF and chemical weapons, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is equally, if not far more, important that we should reach some sort of accommodation over strategic weapons? Does he further agree that such an accommodation will be very difficult to achieve until there is some understanding with the Soviet Union on the testing and deployment of the SDI?

As the prospect of agreement on strategic weapons was one of the components that was endorsed by NATO at its two ministerial meetings at the end of last year, as well as at Camp David, it is clear that we should like there to be headway on strategic weapons. That may be easier to achieve if there is proper understanding of the way in which the ABM treaty is to be observed by both sides.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the draft treaty on intermediate missiles that has been tabled by the United States at Geneva does not endorse the Prime Minister's line that catching up with Soviet short range superiority is a pre-condition for an agreement? Why is it that when this condition was not part of NATO's zero option offer in 1983 it is now so important and might easily obstruct a historic agreement that would get rid of both the SS20s and the cruise and Pershing missiles in Europe? Why does our Prime Minister, every time that there is a significant concession from the Soviet Union and the chance of a break through in arms control, insist on inventing some spurious objection to it and on moving the goal posts?

The hon. Gentleman is doing his best with a profoundly bad brief. There is absolutely no validity in the points that he makes. From the moment that the zero-zero option was put forward in 1981 it was always accompanied by the suggestion that constraints on shorter-range intermediate weapons were necessary and part of it. As I have already said this afternoon, that position was clearly set out in the Defence Ministers' and the Foreign Ministers' communiqués of December 1986. We need to have constraints on the SRINF systems, which are capable of targeting western Europe, and those constraints need to be incorporated in any INF agreement on zero-zero. Thereafter, further negotiations must address urgently the substantial imbalance that currently exists in the SRINF.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the United Kingdom delegation to the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe review conference in Vienna will raise the subject of the free movement of postal communications between the United Kingdom and countries in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Our delegation has already raised this issue in debate on a number of occasions. With other Western countries, we have tabled a proposal aimed at ensuring freedom of transit of postal communications.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply, but does he not agree that the Soviet record in these matters is a yardstick by which its general commitment to human rights should be judged? Will my hon. Friend advise our partners in Europe and at the Vienna conference that no agreement should be reached with the Soviets until the subject of the free movement of postal communications can be sorted out?

My hon. Friend is right when he says that freedom of postal communications is one area where we should be watching carefully porgress on the Soviet side. That is inherent in the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act, and we shall be pressing the Soviets continually on that point.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the recently released Soviet dissidents have returned home in very bad health, but that Soviet law currently prevents the mailing of medical supplies to them from the West? Will he take up this matter in Vienna and also when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister goes to Moscow?

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing our attention to that matter. I shall certainly ask our delegation in Vienna to raise it with the Soviets. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary go to Moscow at the end of next week, I have no doubt that human rights abuses will be high on their list of priorities. It is one matter that I shall see is in their brief as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the EEC Council of Foreign Ministers last discussed the 1987 budget.

The Foreign Affairs Council last discussed the 1987 budget on 26 January.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Community will spend about £3 billion more than its permitted revenue this year, and that the Commission's reaction to that is to try to switch to a more generous revenue system so that the budget can continue its upward path? Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to veto any such scheme? Will he bring to the European budget the prudence and financial rectitude for which he was famous when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer?

I acknowledge with gratitude the tribute from my hon. Friend. He is right to remind the House of the continuing problems of securing effective control over the Community budget. He will know that our position with regard to any possible increase in resources rests absolutely on the Fontainebleau agreement, which provides that the maximum rate may be increased to 1·6 per cent. on 1 January next year, by unanimous decision of the Council and after agreement by national Parliaments. I emphasise the word may, not shall. We stand by the letter of that agreement. We see no case for going beyond it. We intend to achieve control over the budget that is as effective as my hon. Friend would like.

When will the Delors proposals that budgetary contributions be based on national GNPs be discussed by the Council, and what is the Government's initial response to them?

The Delors proposals are now under consideration by permanent representatives, having received preliminary discussion by Ministers. The Foreign Affairs Council will have its first discussion of the Commission's proposals on 27 and 28 April, on the basis of which there will be a report to the European Council. However, our position is as I have stated it. We stand by the letter of the Fontainebleau agreement, as I have just described it.

Is it not a distortion to say that the main responsibility for Community budgetary discipline rests with the Commission? Does not the main responsibility for the problem rest with the Council of Ministers in its various guises being unwilling to impose upon itself a proper set of budgetary priorities? Is it not the case that we are unlikely to produce a permanent solution until we tackle that institutional aspect of the problem?

I wish that it was as easy as something that could be solved by reshuffling the institutional responsibilities. The basic reason for the extreme difficulty in securing control over Community expenditure on agriculture is the same as the reason for achieving similar discipline in the United States, Japan and most other industrial countries— the problem of protecting the health of rural communities in a fashion that is compatible with the cash resources that are available. I am afraid that it will be a matter for the whole House, just as for the whole European Parliament and all those engaged in institutions, to seek further and better ways of protecting the rural environment that do not depend upon the production of food surpluses that cannot be sold and can be stored only at great expense.

Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied, and is the Council satisfied, that the revenue side of the budget agreed by the Council recently will be adequate to produce the revenue needed in 1987? If not, do he and the Council favour a supplementary budget or a new intergovernmental agreement?

We have made it clear in the discussions that have taken place so far that we shall not provide additional finance outside the own resources system.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend mean by what he has just said that he sticks by the triumph of the Fontainebleau agreement, with its commitment to strict budgetary discipline, and that he is not prepared to support any form of intergovernmental agreement or any other form of financing that goes outside the budget as defined and as limited by the Fontainebleau agreement?

I said in my earlier reply that we shall not provide additional finance outside the own resources system. There is scope for savings in the agricultural price fixing. There is also some headroom in the 1·4 per cent. ceiling. Of course, there is scope for consideration, under the Fontainebleau agreement and subject to the requirement of unanimity, of the possible increase provided for there.

The Foreign Secretary has come to the House before and told us all this. It is all very well his saying that he will stick to the Fontainebleau agreement, but the Community is already working at 1·6 per cent. of VAT and its accumulated liabilities now total £12 billion. If the Government were to reject the Delors package, which would put the price tag up to 2·1 per cent. of VAT, what would happen then? Even these proposals provide for an increase in CAP of 2·5 per cent. a year. Why is there such a silence from the Government about this very important crisis affecting the Community? We have had no debate, no statements from the Finance Ministers Councils, nothing except a lot of dithering. How is the circle to be squared? Where will the extra mony come from to fill the huge hole that exists in the Community's finances?

The hon. Gentleman should really know better than to make that kind of observation. He should know perfectly well that we have put in place the budgetary discipline arrangements of the Fontainebleau agreement. They are fortified and sustained by the specific limitations of the own resources system. The limits of the room for manoeuvre are as described, with the possibility—and I emphasise the word possibility—of a 1·6 per cent. ceiling with the unanimous agreement of all member states. It is a matter of may, not must. We are entitled to look to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for his support for the range of extremely difficult measures that are likely to be necessary if we are to secure effective control of the financing of agricultural policies.

Dr. Blackburn. I am sorry, I meant to call Mr. Willie Hamilton. That was my mistake. I was listening to something else.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the implications for diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Brazil of that country's decision to suspend interest payments on its overseas debts; and if he will make a statement.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to answer the question. Although we have made clear to the Brazilian Government our regret at their decision, this has not affected our generally good relations. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is visiting Brazil this week and will no doubt discuss this subject.

Does the Foreign Office still accept the opinion that the Under-Secretary expressed in the House a week or two ago that the solution to the problem can be found only by accepting IMF conditions? That would quite clearly be impossible for the very poor people in that country. Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the poverty of these countries is as big a threat to world peace as any nuclear weapon? Unless the problems are solved, principally, I believe, by the commercial banks accepting lower rates of interest rather than having unacceptable conditions imposed by the IMF, the problem will never be solved. What proposals will the Minister take from banks in this country when she visits Brazil later this week?

We very much regret the decision to suspend payment of interest on commercial debt. However, debt negotiations are a matter for the Brazilian Government to discuss directly with commercial bank creditors. It is not for Her Majesty's Government to interfere, although we obviously hope that negotiations can begin very soon.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to decrease the debt burden and increase the ability of countries such as Brazil to pay is for the West to reduce interest levels? That will occur only when they have prudently run economies.

I very much agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question.

Will the Minister confirm that these are strictly commercial loans between British banks and foreign agencies and Governments? Will he give an undertaking to the House that in the event of there being a major default by one of these countries it will be up to the British banks to bear the consequences?

I gladly confirm to the hon. Gentleman that the debts that we are talking about are almost overwhelmingly commercial debts between commercial banks of Western countries and Brazil.

Does the Minister agree that unless there is a major initiative by the West on these matters, perhaps based on reducing interest rates and rescheduling debts, we shall face the unpalatable alternative of even more people defaulting, following the example of Brazil and now Ecuador?

The situation in Ecuador is slightly different, as there has been a significant natural disaster there. It is impossible to have a general prescription on this as it is a matter for discussion between the countries involved and those who hold their debts. There are a number of possible solutions and each must be considered on an ad hoc basis.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied with the Soviet response to representations made by the United Kingdom delegation at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe review conference in Vienna on the subject of human rights and freedom of religious rights.

No, Sir. Our delegation has vigorously raised human rights issues, including freedom of religious rights, at Vienna. We still await satisfactory answers to many of our questions, particularly from the Soviet delegation.

Will my hon. Friend note that there is considerable support in all parts of the House and throughout the country for the British delegation to stress the abhorrence in this country at the restriction of human and religious rights, both Jewish and Christian, in the Soviet Union? Will he give an assurance that action will be taken on these very important issues?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to ensure that the spotlight is focused not just on the hundreds who may be obtaining release but on the thousands still suffering either for their Christian beliefs or because, as Soviet Jews, they cannot obtain exit visas. The Vienna conference provides an opportunity, and our delegation will continue to stress this.

I thank the Government for their approach to this issue. Does the Minister agree that the release, however welcome, of people such as Josef Begun, Slepak and Ida Nudel from prison or exile is not enough and that they must also be released from the Soviet Union, even if Members of this House and their spouses are not allowed into the Soviet Union? May we expect the Prime Minister to protest about both matters when she is in Moscow?

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his support. I note that he has a later question—

It will not be reached.

I hope that it will be reached. That question relates to the lack of entry visas for some parliamentary colleagues to go to Moscow, which I very much regret. I have no doubt at all that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will have the whole question of human rights and the points raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman very much in mind when they visit Moscow at the end of next week.

Does my hon. Friend accept that his last remarks will be very reassuring to most people? Will he ask our right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to stress to Mr. Gorbachev that if he is to create an atmosphere of international trust which could be the basis for real progress in disarmament talks it is essential that proper freedoms are granted in his own territories and that Jews and Christians are allowed to worship in peace and freedom?

I am sure that the whole House agrees with my hon. Friend. It is a matter not just of securing the release of the famous few but of ensuring true and proper freedoms for the obscure many. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will have that in mind next week.

Does the Minister agree that although we should continue to ensure that the Soviets pay a very heavy political price for their failure to release the 1,500 and more Christians who are in prison simply because of their religious activities, it would be wise at the same time to give some credit for the progress and positive signals since December and the release of Sakharov from internal exile? Does the Minister agree that in this, as in other matters, we should have a twin-track policy?

Yes, I think that the hon. Gentleman has a fair point. We are cautious about the developments that have taken place in the Soviet Union, but we are certainly ready to put Mr. Gorbachev's comments and promises to the test. The real issue is that glasnost should apply not just to some but to all. Only then will we be convinced that there is fundamental change In the Soviet Union.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to be able to set a date for elections for a new administration in the Turks and Caicos Islands.

We are studying the report of the Turks and Caicos Islands constitutional commission and its recommendations. On present plans, we hope to publish the report and our response towards the end of April.

Does the Minister accept that there is considerable concern over the delay that has followed the announcement of 25 July, that everyone hopes that the timetable that the Minister has now given is adhered to, and that democracy is restored to the islands as soon as possible?

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, and I also appreciate the constructive attitude taken by the Labour Front Bench. We are well aware of the pressures referred to by the hon. Gentleman, and we are doing our best to reach a decision and make the necessary publication by the date in question.

Does the Minister agree that our experience in the Turks and Caicos Islands brings into question the perceived wisdom of automatically allowing independence to small islands and other small dependencies?

As my hon. Friend is aware, a review of our policy on dependent territories is taking place, and we have his point very much in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the intermediate range nuclear forces negotiations.

As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) earlier this afternoon, the seventh round of the Geneva nuclear and space talks has been extended to allow further discussion of the United States draft INF treaty tabled on 4 March. Our aim remains the conclusion of a global longer range intermediate nuclear forces agreement based on zero-zero missiles in Europe and incorporating constraints on Soviet missiles in Asia and on certain shorter range intermediate nuclear forces in Europe. Effective verification will be a vital part of the agreement.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his reply. As he knows, during the recent visit of the Soviet delegation to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Professor Zagladin suggested that we might jointly pursue the concept of adequate defence rather than that of mutually assured destruction. Has my right hon. and learned Friend done any work on that subject?

That question raises massively wide issues beyond which it is difficult to go. We cannot escape from the conclusion that for the foreseeable future the nuclear component will be an effective and essential part of our deterrent defensive policy, and any changes must be calculated to enhance rather than undercut the effectiveness of that defence.

In his welcome speech in Brussels the Foreign Secretary asked us to look beyond the INF agreement to the strengthening of the WEU. Why did the right hon. and learned Gentleman find it necessary to imply that the WEU headquarters should move close to NATO in Brussels, apart from the fact that he was speaking in Brussels?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also tell us whether he wants Spain to become a member of, and a signatory to, the treaty and join the union? Is he worried that an expansion of the membership might detract from the capacity to discuss nuclear strategic questions, and in particular from the importance of using the framework for increased Anglo-French strategic nuclear co-operation?

The suggestion of possible co-location in Brussels was prompted, not by the fact that I happened to be speaking in that city, but by a fact that has not escaped the perceptive intelligence of the right hon. Gentleman, namely, that the NATO headquarters are in Brussels. To have part of an organisation's institution in Paris and another part in London is not necessarily the best way of ensuring that it contributes effectively to the dynamic of the Alliance. No doubt many people will disagree with the suggestion, but it is worth considering.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the membership of Spain and other possible applicant countries. As I said in my speech on Monday, it is most important that any expansion of membership should contribute to the cohesion and effectiveness of the WEU, which is why it is important for the WEU's existing members to be clear about their purpose and intention. I do not think that if any prudent alteration in the membership took place, it should affect the prospect of the necessary increasing consultation between Europe's two nuclear powers, the two permanent members of the Security Council, France and the United Kingdom.

In response to an earlier question my right hon. and learned Friend referred to the need for a proper understanding between the two signatories to the ABM treaty. Can he confirm that article 13 of that treaty established a consultative committee precisely to consider questions of interpretation and that, as a result of those arrangements, that committee meets twice every year? Can he tell the House whether he has any information about disputes relating to the interpretation of that treaty, the so-called broad or narrow definition, having been raised in the consultative committee?

My hon. Friend, with his long experience and knowledge of such matters, is quite right to draw attention to the existence of the consultative committee and to the fact that it meets to consider matters within its terms of reference. However, it is equally clear that it has not been able to resolve all the matters currently under discussion. The question of any possible change as between broad and narrow in the application of the treaty would go beyond the scope of that consultative committee.

Returning to the original supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), will the Foreign Secretary express a view as to whether the existence of about 50,000 nuclear warheads throughout the world is adequate for security, or do we need more?

I repeat the view that I expressed in Brussels on Monday, and which I have expressed on many other occasions. There is a super-abundance, far beyond any necessity, of nuclear warheads on both sides of the European divide. That is one of several good reasons for seeking to achieve progress in arms control, including the reductions that could be made possible if we secure the present INF agreement.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in negotiations with the Soviet Union on arms reductions, consistency of purpose and firmness of resolve are essential? Does he further agree that if we were unilaterally to abandon our independent nuclear deterrent or require the United States to remove cruise from Europe, we would have a position of instability in Europe and fundamentally undermine those arms negotiations? Is not the lesson that if one gives anything to the USSR, one gets nothing in return?

It is quite clear that the prospect of progress in the INF agreement and in the negotiations that may now be before us is a consequence of the coherence and firmness of the Western Alliance and not of our willingness to embark on unilateral disarmament.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek opportunities to raise the question of the reunification of divided families both with the Soviet Foreign Minister and at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe review conference in Vienna.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any official response from the Soviet authorities to representations which he and his ministerial colleagues have made during the past six months on individual cases of abuse of human rights in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

There has been no official response. But a number of cases that we have raised over the past six months have now been resolved, for example, those of Irina Ratushinskaya, Josef Begun and Alexander Ogorodnikov, who are now at liberty. We shall continue to press for further improvements in human rights and family reunification cases in bilateral contacts with the Soviet Government and at the Vienna CSCE review meeting.

Bearing in mind that there are more than 9,000 Soviet Jews who have been waiting for more than five years for permission to emigrate from the Soviet Union, will the Foreign Secretary advise the Prime Minister that, when she meets Mr. Gorbachev, she should make it clear to him that Her Majesty's Government will not be satisfied until all those Soviet Jews who wish to emigrate to other countries are allowed to do so?

I very much take the hon. Gentleman's point. When I was in Moscow in January I was promised by Mr. Kashlev, the head of the Russian delegation in Vienna, that the number of exit visas this year would increase by an order of several magnitudes from that of last year. However, so far I notice that for February there have only been 146 exit visas for Soviet Jews, compared with more than 4,000 per month in 1979. Therefore, I am sure that my right hon. Friends will have the hon. Gentleman's point in mind when they go to Moscow next week.

May I, too, thank my hon. Friend for the work that he is doing in this area? May I ask him, when he next meets the Russians, to tell them that, happy as we are that they are ending their abuse of human rights in respect of a few individual cases, they cannot persuade the West that they are serious about their undertakings on peace and security which have been entered into internationally if they are breaking wholesale their international undertakings on human rights? Will he also say that, instead of doing a bit here and there to keep the West sweet, they should honour those international undertakings to the full?

I very much agree with my hon. and learned Friend. As I have said, we must now think not only about the famous few who are in the spotlight, but about the thousands who are either still in prison as prisoners of conscience for their beliefs or who have been waiting 10 or 15 years for an exit visa. My right hon. Friends will certainly have those points in mind next week.

While I join warmly in the appreciation expressed to the Government for their work and the work of others in this area, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that, in making representations in Moscow about the crime of keeping families divided, our hand would be strengthened if we stopped keeping some families divided?

The hon. Gentleman's analogy is somewhat obscure to me, but I thank him for the tribute that he paid. It is important that we should continue to put pressure on the Soviet Union over the whole area of human rights and to make certain that the promises that are now being made from the top are genuinely fulfilled to help the human rights position of the many thousands who are still suffering in Soviet Russia.

May I, too, express appreciation for the many hours of work that my hon. Friend has put in on human rights and divided families with the Soviets? Is he aware that the fourth Member of Parliament who was recently refused a visa, namely, me, was refused on the day when a Soviet fireman was here receiving honours for his work at Chernobyl? Will he confirm that Soviet visitors, including political visitors, are free to come here on individual or official visits and that they do so frequently? Will he kindly explain to Mr. Zamyatin that the crucial difference on the divided family syndrome is that our problems arise because people want to come into the country, whereas in the Soviet Union people want to leave?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not able to obtain his entry visa to the Soviet Union, but I hope that he will continue to apply and, that on another occasion he will be successful. It is, indeed, ironic that it is only from the Soviet Union that literally thousands of people are wishing to obtain exit visas and to leave. There is no such record from this country or the United States. That is a point that we must continually press on the Soviet authorities, including the Soviet ambassador in London.

Is the Minister aware that in 1985,; when Mr. Gorbachev came to office, there were 383,000 outstanding invitations to Soviet Jews from their friends and relatives to go to other countries? In his first year of office he released fewer than 1,000, last year he released 1,100, and this year the figure is about the same. Therefore, will the Minister call upon the Prime Minister to draw Mr. Gorbachev's attention to those figures? Is the Minister further aware that in January this year Soviet emigration rules were tightened to make it even more difficult for Soviet Jews to emigrate?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I have already commented on the rapid fall-off in exit visas for Soviet Jews and others, particularly since the high point reached in 1979, when more than 50,000 exit visas were granted. That compares with last year's total of 5,000, of which 1,000 were for Jews. We shall continue to stress that point. I note the right hon. Gentleman's point about the change in the emigration rules and I raised it in Moscow. I was told that, nevertheless, the authorities expected a great increase in exit visas this year. We are waiting to see that happen, but so far it has not. The proof of the pudding will lie in the eating. We shall continue to press vigorously for it.

May I add my voice to those urging my hon. Friend to explain once again to the Russian authorities that, despite some window dressing, their refusal to honour their obligations with regard to human rights will cast some doubt upon their sincerity in disarmament negotiations?

I believe that what we have to do now is accept what Mr. Gorbachev and some of his Ministers are saying with caution, but put it to the test. We have to test them—and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friends will have this in mind in Moscow next week—to see whether the major changes which they have promised they are envisaging really will happen. I certainly take my hon. Friend's point that until there is a radical change in the human rights position in the Soviet Union it is difficult to accept wholeheartedly all that they promise us about arms control.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent initiatives Her Majesty's Government have taken towards ending the Iran-Iraq war.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has received about the possibility of an end to the Iran-Iraq war.

We take every opportunity to encourage progress towards a peaceful settlement of the Iran-Iraq conflict in bilateral contacts, in concert with our European partners and at the United Nations. The Foreign Ministers of the Twelve issued a further statement on 26 January, and we are taking an active part in discussions at the United Nations. We support the constructive role played by the United Nations Secretary-General. There are, however, regrettably, no firm indications that an end to the conflict is in prospect.

Surely the appalling loss of life, particularly among young people, calls for an immediate ban on sales to both countries? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to raise this particular question with the Council of Ministers and the Security Council?

Let me first reassure the hon. Member that, as I have said many times in the House and in answer to letters from parliamentary colleagues, the guidelines that we have had in place since the end of 1984 are strictly impartial as between Iran and Iraq. They have lost British manufacturers many millions of pounds' worth of orders, but we are scrupulously seeing that nothing is exported from this country that would significantly enhance the capacity of either side to prolong or exacerbate the war. Yes, we will certainly continue to pursue these points in both the Council of Ministers and the Security Council in New York.

Is it not a fact that chemical weapons have been used in the war and that innocent people have been killed by them? Will my hon. Friend condemn the use of chemical weapons, both in this war and anywhere else?

What my hon. Friend says is right. A United Nations team investigated the use of chemical weapons by Iraq and reported on this to the Security Council, when the use of chemical weapons was condemned. We continue to press both sides not to use chemical weapons and we remain active in Geneva in pursuing negotiations on a total ban on the production and stockpiling of chemical weapons.

Does the Minister accept that his words about bringing peace in the Iran-Iraq conflict would make much more sense and be much more plausible if there were an absolute ban on the sale of arms to either side and on the sale of any precursor chemicals that could be used for the manufacture of chemical weapons? Does he not accept, further, that he would be well advised to ensure that this ban was effectively co-ordinated throughout the EC and the United States?

I find it rather hard to be lectured on this point by the hon. Gentleman. We have put an export embargo on a number of precursor chemical weapons. We have introduced a warning list, which is circulated to manufacturers, about other chemicals that could be used as precursors. Many chemicals which have a perfectly bona fide civilian use can also be used as precursors, which is one of the difficulties with a tight export regime. But we have been taking a lead on this and if all other countries were being as prudent and careful as we are about the export of military equipment there would be very much less danger of the Iran-Iraq war escalating.

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he will say something about aerial attacks on British merchant shipping using the Gulf, whether he can say anything about any new counter-measures which may be available and whether he has anything encouraging to say to the House in this respect?

Yes. As my hon. Friend will know, there was an attack by the Iranians on the MV Isomeria, a Shell gas tanker, towards the end of January. We protested strongly to the Iranians subsequent to that attack. We have since then taken care to see that the Armilla patrol is more regularly in the Gulf near the area where these attacks have been taking place, not only on the vessel that I have just named, but on other neutral merchantmen. The job of the patrol will be to help and to stay in the vicinity of British merchantmen.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received on the implications for Her Majesty's Government's foreign policy of the supply of arms to Iran.

We have received a number of letters from hon. and right hon. Members and members of the public on this subject. We have no plans to change the guidelines on defence sales to Iran and Iraq. They have proved effective in implementing our policy of strict impartiality in the Iran-Iraq conflict and of not supporting the war-making capabilities of either side.

Is the Minister aware of the concern throughout the country at the existence just across the road from this palace, at 4 Victoria street, of an office which reputedly organises over 80 per cent. of all Iran's arms imports? Is not the continued operation of this office, in the face of representations from the American Government to shut it down, an outrage in view of the Government's declared policy to end this dreadful war? Will the Minister now take resolute action to stop the activities of these "neighbours" of ours who are indulging in this evil trade?

On the hon. Member's main point, may I say that we are, of course, aware of the allegations concerning the activities of the Iranian military procurement office in London. He must understand that the arrangement from the United Kingdom of arms sales to Iran is not illegal unless the goods concerned are exported from the United Kingdom in breach of British law. There is no firm evidence of this.

As to the hon. Gentleman's general point, he seems to revel in guilt by accusation and innuendo. He appears to think that if he throws enough mud some of it will stick. There is no firm evidence for the allegations that he has made now and on previous occasions. He should learn to put the national interest before cheap scaremongering in order to make political points.

In welcoming my hon. Friend's restatement of the Government's policy of not selling lethal arms, may I invite him to agree that we have international obligations as well as a national interest in the security of the Gulf, and that, following the increasing extent to which American policies in the middle east have become discredited, there is a real vacuum which could be filled by this country? Will my hon. Friend consider taking an initiative in that regard, but, before doing so, will he consult most closely with our allies in the region who are directly affected in the Gulf Co-operation Council, that is, the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman?

I take my hon. Friend's point. He knows the region well. I was in the Arabian peninsula three weeks ago and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement is in the area at the moment. From those visits we are well aware of the points my hon. Friend makes and of the need to work closely with the Gulf Co-operation Council to try to defuse the risk in the Gulf of the present worrying Iran-Iraq conflict spreading. We shall do all we can in that respect, with the advice of our friends in the area.

Does the hostility to the sale or provision of arms to Iran expressed by the hon. Gentleman a few minutes ago include hostility to the sale or provision of arms from the United States of America? Can the Minister tell us when last either the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister put that point to the President of the United States?

We are clearly talking today about our policy in relation to arms sales to Iran and Iraq. We remain in consultation with the United States and other friendly countries about what we can do to stop the spread of the conflict. This was a matter that I discussed with two Government officials from Iraq only yesterday. We shall do all that we can to see that the conflict does not spread.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he intends to meet the United States Trade Secretary to discuss any effects of United States trade measures on the Atlantic Alliance.

My right hon. and learned Friend has no plans at present to meet the United States Trade Representative or Commerce Secretary, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met them in Washington on 3 March. My right hon. and learned Friend last discussed EC-US trade issues with Secretary of State Shultz in January, and will be meeting him again on 9 April next.

Will my hon. Friend or any of her colleagues take the first available opportunity to draw to the attention of any United States Ministers in the list that she mentioned the admirable document that has been placed in the Library by her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry showing the extent to which the United States aircraft industry is subsidised through military budgets? Will she ask them to stop attacking the extremely successful European aircraft industry on the basis of false figures?

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is absolutely right. The way in which the United States aircraft industry has been supported in the past should be considered carefully by those Ministers. The Airbus partners reject the allegations of unfair subsidies. We have acted, and will continue to act, in accordance with GATT. It is clear from the funding of Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas just how much United States money has been put into defence-related projects in the United States, and that must be clearly borne in mind in any discussions of such trade matters.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the private notice question.