asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will agree to meet the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to discuss King Hussein's middle east peace initiative.

We support King Hussein's courageous initiative. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I had a useful discussion with the King on 19 July. We are examining with him how best we can encourage the current movement towards peace negotiations. We have also welcomed the Israeli Prime Minister's proposals of 10 June as a useful contribution to narrowing the gap between the parties.

The Secretary of State must be aware that there is now a real danger that that initiative will run out of steam, and the Palastinian people will conclude that there is no way in which diplomacy will bring them a just solution. That is a grave danger for the situation in the middle east. Could not the British Government have a little more courage and, instead of whispering in the ear of the American Government, stand up publicly and agree to meet the delegation in order to move the whole initiative forward?

The hon. Lady is right to emphasise the importance of keeping the movement towards peace moving in that direction. It is wrong to cast any judgment on our lack of courage or insight. We are looking continually at all the possible moves that we can make to help the process forward. The key point is that what is necessarily a step-by-step approach is kept moving in the right direction and that each step that we take will help and not hinder that process.

In order to assist King Hussein in his peace efforts, would it not be helpful for Her Majesty's Government to announce their willingness to receive the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation in advance of the United States doing so? Should we not appear to be one step ahead of the Americans in this matter, and not one step behind?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the need to judge these matters carefully. 'We shall certainly be making a judgment in response to such suggestions in the way that we judge, after consultation with the King, to be most likely to take the process forward.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has welcomed the statement by Prime Minister Peres, who I am sure he will agree is a man of peace. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman know that it is the expressed view of Prime Minister Peres that, far from the Hussein initiative hastening the way to peace, it will stand in the way of direct negotiations between the parties, which provide the best hope for a true solution to a very difficult problem?

Despite my overwhelming respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman's accuracy and my awareness of his concern in the matter, I am not sure that he accurately summarises what Prime Minister Peres said. The important thing is to take into account how easy it is for misunderstandings to arise in the matter and to make sure that progress is being maintained in the direction and with the objective of direct and effective negotiations in the cause of peace.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend congratulate King Hussein on his sincere efforts to achieve peace in the middle east? Will he do his utmost to swing the moderate Arab states behind King Hussein and secure appropriate representation on the delegation? In all the circumstances, will he take it on board that it is the wish of many right hon. and hon. Members that he meets the delegation?

I understand the point in the last part of my hon. Friend's question and the extent to which it is supported. As he says, it is right to encourage Palestinians who are committed to working for peace, all of those moderate leaders in the Arab world who are committed to the same cause, and all those in Israel as well.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that he does nothing to jeopardise Mr. Richard Murphy's American diplomatic initiative and that any deputation that is received here contains names that are also acceptable to the Americans?

Each question that is asked on this matter shows the many factors that one must keep in mind and the many components that could be constructive that one must take care not to jeopardise. I have well in mind the points that my hon. Friend made.

This is a courageous initiative which is clearly at a delicate stage. Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the Government have no objection in principle to meeting the joint delegation? Will he also confirm that the Government believe that these moves towards a partial settlement on the lines of Camp David are more likely to be productive than is a generalised peace conference, and that there are real signs of progress, especially as the Soviets seem more willing to recognise the existence of the state of Israel?

One cannot be sure about the validity of the hon. Gentleman's last point. He is right to call attention to the hazards, as he put it, of a generalised peace conference, certainly at this stage. The important thing is to take steps that are necessary and right at each stage to encourage moderate leadership on both sides to come closer together and, eventually, to negotiations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Mozambique.

We maintain friendly relations with the Government of Mozambique. This is happily demonstrated by the current visit to this country by the Mozambican Foreign Minister, Dr. Chissano, as our guest.

Will my hon. Friend confirm newspaper reports that Britain is to train and equip Mozambican army officers and NCOs? Does not the Machel regime remain Marxist, denying human rights and fundamental freedoms, and is it not coming under increasing pressure from anti-Marxist rebels? Are we convinced that we are supporting the right side?

Yes, Sir. President Machel has made clear his wish to develop relations with Western countries. We believe that we should respond positively. It is against that background that, with the full agreement of the Zimbabwe Government, we have offered to expand the British military advisory and training team in Zimbabwe to train officers and NCOs of the Mozambican army.

I am glad to hear that we have friendly relations with the Mozambique Government. Does the Minister agree that they are extremely exposed because of their relationship with South Africa? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that there is support for the Mozambique Government and their relationship with South Africa, bearing in mind the emergency in South Africa? Does he agree that it is important that we show that we have the interests of the Mozambique Government and their independence at heart, despite the problems that must arise from the emergency in South Africa?

We have the interests of Mozambique's development at heart. Until now, South Africa has stuck by the Nkomati accord and has recently not given official support to Renamo. That has been acknowledged in Mozambique. We have an interest in the external implications of the current insecurity in Mozambique. That is one reason why we have taken the steps that I have just announced.

What are the Mozambique Government's views on the proposal to impose economic sanctions on South Africa?

I am not aware that the Mozambique Government have yet expressed any view on that subject.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last met representatives of the Government of the United States of America; and what subjects were discussed.

I last did so when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I met Vice-President George Bush during his visit to London from 2 to 3 July. The principal topics discussed were international terrorism, East-West trade, East-West relations and international trade issues.

What discussions or recent communications have there been between the British and American Governments about possible concerted action by both Governments to reject the legitimate calls for economic sanctions against South Africa? Is it not absolutely deplorable that once more the British Government are deserting our true friends in the Commonwealth in order to kowtow to Ronald Reagan in support of the continuance of economic relations which in effect will bolster the evil apartheid regime which is directly responsible for the recent bloodshed and other atrocities during the current emergency in South Africa?

I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning apartheid wholeheartedly and without qualification, but at that point I must part company from his insight into international affairs. I cannot believe that he seriously imagines that our view about the wisdom of economic sanctions is dictated by a determination to kowtow to President Reagan or to anybody else. We wish progress to be made in order to secure the removal of apartheid, but we believe that the imposition of economic sanctions would not help in that direction but would have the contrary effect.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the United States Government propose to impose curbs on steel imports from 1 August 1985? Is he also aware that imports from the European Community into the United States are the result of rigidities and inefficiencies in the steel manufacturing sector in the United States? Is it not unfair that because high American interest rates fund their massive budget deficit, which provides an opening for the import of European steel into their market, they should propose to block such imports? What action will my right hon. and learned Friend take about this and what representations will he make to his opposite number in the United States Government?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to steel imports as one of the areas where the United States is threatening to take restrictive action if agreement cannot be reached with the European Community. We believe that the United States should refrain from taking unilateral action in such areas. It is important for such disagreements to be handled bilaterally between the European Community and the United States. The exchange rate of the dollar, to which the size of the United States federal deficit makes a significant contribution, is an important factor.

Did the Foreign Secretary discuss with Vice-President Bush how to cope with the growing volume of popular pressure in both the United States and Britain for the imposition of some form of economic sanctions on South Africa? If so, what conclusions did they reach as representatives of two Governments who, in this sense, are beleaguered minorities in their own countries?

The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself in judging the scale of pressure for action of that kind in this country. However, on this issue the view of the United States is the same as our own: that although we profoundly detest and deplore apartheid and all its manifestations, we do not believe that the imposition of economic sanctions would be helpful either in helping to remove apartheid or in promoting the interests of the people who are most adversely affected by it.

Since most hon. Members agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that economic sanctions against South Africa would be unhelpful and unrewarding, will he assure the House that he took the opportunity when he met Vice-President Bush to express very clearly Her Majesty's Government's views?

The two Governments are in constant touch with each other on this topic. In the context of the United Nations and of bilateral contacts we have no doubt about each other's views.

On the subject of contacts with the American Government, what precisely is the function of the current visit to America by the Secretary of State for Defence? Why is he going round the United States trying to lick up the gravy of the star wars programme when the Foreign Secretary and all his European counterparts seemed openly to express widespread doubts about the strategic defence initiative?

The hon. Gentleman is extending his range of curiosity widely this afternoon——

Why not?

I am always here to satisfy, as far as I can. Let me take the hon. Gentleman's second point first. Any decisions to modernise existing radar establishments, including the one at Fylingdales, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, and would be undertaken in any event in compliance with existing treaty obligations.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the non-delivery of mail to individuals in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in breach of the Universal Postal Convention was raised by the United Kingdom delegation during the discussions on human rights at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Ottawa in May; and if he will make a statement.

The United Kingdom delegation to the Ottawa meeting made clear our very real concern about the Soviet practice of interfering with private mail sent from abroad.

Is the Minister aware that the host of communications sent recently from the United Kingdom to the USSR which were seized by the Soviet postal authorities included inoffensive items such as wedding invitations and birthday cards? Will the Minister undertake to communicate with his opposite number in the USSR to discover which items are prohibited by the Soviet postal authorities, so that those who send communications to their friends in that country can be informed?

I know of the hon. Gentleman's longstanding interest in this problem. As I said, the general subject was raised forcefully at the Ottawa meeting on human rights. As the hon. Gentleman will know, my hon. Friend the Minister of State — the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind)—arrives in Moscow today. He told me before his departure that he intends to raise this general issue during his visit.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet the new Soviet Foreign Minister.

I expect to meet the new Soviet Foreign Minister in Helsinki on 1 August during the meeting commemorating the 10th anniversary of the signature of the Helsinki final act.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the main prerequisite for agreement on arms control is that there should be confidence between East and West? Will he use that meeting as an opportunity to stress the British Government's commitment to increasing confidence?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the achievement of success in arms control negotiations could depend substantially on the creation of confidence on both sides. I shall certainly do my best to stress that. It is one reason why we welcome the prospect of contact at the highest level in the forthcoming summit meeting between the President of the United States and Mr. Gorbachev.

Before that meeting with the new Soviet Foreign Minister, does the Foreign Secretary think it appropriate to restart the Anglo-Soviet health agreement, which was signed in 1975 but suspended in 1979? The suspension has caused much friction between the two countries. Would not such a gesture be appropriate to commemorate the signing of the Helsinki final act?

I shall reconsider the matter in the light of the cogent arguments advanced by the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot promise him that my consideration will be concluded in time for the meeting next week.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets the new Soviet Foreign Minister, will he say that, although the overseas English language broadcasts of the BBC are not usually jammed, its Russian service broadcasts are always jammed, and that that is in breach of the international telecommunications convention—another international undertaking which the Soviets have signed but do not honour?

Freedom of broadcasting is a matter that frequently arises at meetings of this kind, and it will be relevant to the proceedings at Helsinki next week. My hon. and learned Friend will find that there is a question directed specifically to this subject to be answered later today.

When the Foreign Secretary meets the Soviet Foreign Minister, will he tell him that the British Government are against the deployment of chemical weapons in Europe by any NATO state, and that it would be helpful if the Soviet Union would reduce dramatically its stocks of chemical weapons and produce no further stocks? Will he also say that the British Government would guarantee, on the removal of all Soviet stocks, that they would be opposed to the deployment of any chemical weapons in Europe?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the massive stocks of chemical weapons held by the Soviet Union and the importance of their removal if we are to secure progress towards a worldwide ban on chemical weapons. The United Kingdom has neither manufactured nor stocked chemical weapons for many years. We shall continue to press the Soviet Union, at Helsinki and elsewhere, for a worldwide ban on chemical weapons.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take every opportunity to press upon the Soviet Union leadership how welcome it would be if, in a co-operative and uncompetitive spirit, it would increase its contribution to solving the problems of famine and development in the Third world?

I shall take that opportunity. I drew attention to that point in a speech yesterday, noting the significant fact that, in the past six months, India has contributed 10 times as much to food aid as the Soviet Union.

Will the proposed visit of Mr. Gromyko to Britain still take place? If not, will it be replaced by a visit from Mr. Shevardnadze, his successor as Foreign Secretary? When the right hon. and learned Gentleman meets the Soviet Foreign Minister in Helsinki, will he suggest that the Soviet Union should impose a ban on all tests of components or subcomponents of systems that could be used in space, including the Soviet anti-satellite system?

I shall consider the second point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. On his point about a visit from Mr. Shevardnadze in place of Mr. Gromyko — whom we must congratulate on his appointment to President — the invitation previously extended to Mr. Gromyko has been re-extended to Mr. Shevardnadze and I hope that it will be accepted.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the prospects for Anglo-Argentine relations in the light of Her Majesty's Government's decision to re-open trade with Argentina.

We have repeatedly made it plain that we seek more normal relations with Argentina, while continuing to fulfil our commitments to the Falkland Islanders. By lifting restrictions on imports from Argentina we have taken a practical step of benefit to both sides, as we have done on a number of occasions since 1982. But the restoration of more normal relations requires as well a constructive approach from Argentina, which it has so far declined to adopt.

While upholding British sovereignty over the Falklands, does my right hon. Friend's reply mean that Her Majesty's Government are always ready to welcome Argentine co-operation in the defence and development of the region? Meanwhile, will the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stop pussyfooting and procrastinating about fisheries protection through a mistaken fear of certain powers?

There is no question of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office pussyfooting or procrastinating about the prospect of effective control over fisheries in the Falkland Islands region. My hon. Friend must understand that we want to achieve an effective fisheries regime, which is much more likely to be effective if we can achieve it on a multilateral basis. That is why we are working actively, under my supervision, to make progress in that direction.

What advice did the right hon. and learned Gentleman get in Brasilia?

We had a useful and constructive exchange of views on a large number of matters. —[Laughter.]

Order. If all questions were as brief as that, we should get on very rapidly.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that in future dealings with Argentina he will in no way be dismayed by its very disappointing reply to his imaginative gesture in lifting trade restrictions? Will he explain that the renewal of diplomatic relations is more in Argentina's interests than it is in ours?

From as long ago as September 1982, when I first proposed and negotiated the withdrawal of financial restrictions between the two countries—an agreement which has yet to be fully implemented by Argentina—I have been exercising a patient pursuit of good reason and sense from the Government of that country.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that the President of Argentina had a very distinguished record in opposing the previous regime? Will he also accept that initiatives and good will on both sides could lead to a lasting agreement on all outstanding issues that would be the envy of diplomats throughout the world?

I certainly recognise the position adopted by the President of Argentina and the part that he has played in restoring democratic government to that country. That is why I am disappointed by the reluctance of his Government to respond even to the gesture we made a couple of weeks ago. We would welcome any signs of willingness to move step by step in the direction of more constructive relations.

In relation to what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, can he say whether he has any objection to the landing of civilian aircraft from Argentina at the new airport at Port Stanley?

The management of that airport is a matter upon which one would need to consider each proposal as it was put.

May I return to the question of fisheries? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there is not a great deal of time before irreparable harm will be inflicted upon the fishery resources of the Falkland waters? What evidence can he give the House that the Foreign Office has taken any helpful action, and when shall we see the urgent initiatives that are necessary?

I appreciate the seriousness with which hon. Members on all sides of the House are looking for a solution to the matter of fisheries raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). We need to reach a conclusion that will be effective, durable and respected. We are much more likely to achieve that on a multilateral basis, and that is why we are working towards that end. If we wish to preserve the fish about which the hon. Member is concerned, we must secure ageement on as wide an international basis as possible.

I hope that it is in order for me to congratulate the Foreign Secretary on this small step forward, even with the unfortunate caveat on sovereignty. Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the oil exploration already under way by Firstland? He is aware of the chaos over fishing. Will he now consider some agreement with Argentina on the development of oil resources for our mutual benefit? Will he confirm that Argentina is involved in the multilateral discussions on fisheries, and that we can expect an agreement soon, before all the fish have gone from the South Atlantic?

I hope that the action upon which the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) was kind enough to congratulate me indicates our disposition to find any way we can to improve our co-operative relationship with the Government of Argentina. That is what we are seeking to do in relation to fish, and we will look at any proposals in relation to anything else. Many people in Argentina understand that action of a multilateral kind to manage and conserve fish in the South Atlantic would be in everybody's interests.

I welcome the reopening of trade with Argentina. How far does the Secretary of State believe it is significant to the stability of the democratic, civilian regime in Argentina to have a discussion of sovereignty on the agenda? If he does believe that it is important, what is he doing about it?

A discussion about sovereignty cannot be on the agenda. For that reason, we have been seeking to open up prospects of discussion on the wide range of topics that I have identified.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will be submitting any proposals to the forthcoming European Economic Community intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.

We have already put forward a number of practical proposals. They remain valid. I expect specific proposals from other member states to be put forward as a basis for discussion at the conference. In the light of that discussion we shall consider whether to put forward any further ideas ourselves.

Does the Foreign Secretary support the Prime Minister's view, expressed recently in the House, that amendments to the treaty of Rome are not required?

The view that we took when we went to the meeting in Milan was that it was possible to achieve the necessary progress on the basis of our proposals, without treaty amendment. As the Prime Minister said in her statement to the House after the Milan summit,

"We must go to that…conference and consider what is put before us."

Now that we appear to be more enthusiastic about the conference, will my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that we shall attend with positive and enthusiastic proposals? If a good number of the founding member states want to make some changes to the treaty—without there being too many—would it be possible for us to accept that with good grace and common sense?

Good God, no.

The important thing, which is well known to my hon. Friend, is that we must achieve a conclusion of the agenda before us as quickly as possible in order to promote effective common action and further progress within the Community. We shall be approaching the whole agenda at the intergovernmental conference with a view to concluding those matters and achieving as much progress as we can.

Will the Foreign Secretary impress on his colleagues that Community aid to Turkey should depend on that country's return to democracy? Will he bring to their attention the new report by Amnesty International showing that torture of political prisoners in Turkey is systematic and widespread and that nothing has changed in that country since the beginning of this year?

I am able to challenge the last part of the hon. Lady's question forthwith, because the parts of Turkey subject to martial law have been substantially reduced since the beginning of this year. That is indicative of the progress that we wish to see towards the restoration of full democracy in Turkey, which is important.

I remind my right hon. and learned Friend of the robust and patriotic words of the Prime Minister who said on her return from Milan, "I do not think there is any need for any amendment to the treaty." Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it clear that the Government rule out any proposals for amendment to the treaty that might come forward at the intergovernmental conference in the autumn?

I remind my hon. Friend of the equally robust and patriotic words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister who said:

"We must go to that…conference and consider what is put before us."—[Official Report, 2 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 191.]

Now that the Foreign Secretary has taken to fudging up everything that the Prime Minister has said in her robust comments, will he tell the House what he will do at the intergovernmental conference to protect this country from changes in the voting procedures which, even without a change in the treaty, could easily lead to the elimination of the Luxembourg compromise? Will he resist any procedural change that will make costly tax harmonisation possible, and will he recognise and admit to the House that any intergovernmental conference that has no agenda, so little time for preparation and nobody agreeing on what the eventual outcome will be, is a recipe for misunderstanding, disillusionment and disenchantment?

The hon. Gentleman has a capacity which astonishes even me for casting gloom and doubt on every sensible proposal before the House. He must recognise the importance of going to the conference with a view to achieving effective progress in a direction that is important for this country. That is how we approach all proposals in the Community. The hon. Gentleman will recall that it was agreed at the Milan conference that proposals for tax harmonisation should be remitted to Finance Ministers for further consideration, because they cause equal doubt and difficulty to a number of member states. As for the Luxembourg compromise, the hon. Gentleman will also accept that many states recognise and emphasise what the Community recognises, that it is not possible in the Community to disregard or overrule the vital national interests of any country. That having been said, it is of vital national interest for the Community to achieve co-ordination and unity on the progress that is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards a common European Community foreign policy.

The United Kingdom put forward at the Milan European Council ideas for a binding agreement on European political co-operation. This would include the formalisation of the commitment to consult, establishment of a small secretariat and closer cooperation on security. These ideas, together with others, will now be on the agenda of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that greater co-operation in foreign affairs among Community countries is a major objective of British Government policy, and that such co-operation is very much in the interests of this country and the other countries of western Europe?

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. It was for that reason we put forward the proposals that we did at the Milan conference for an agreement on political co-operation.

If Foreign Ministers ever work closer together on a common policy, and whether they do or not, will the Foreign Secretary make it absolutely clear that he is against torture? Will he make it absolutely clear that he is against torture in Turkey—[Interruption.]

Order. The question concerns European foreign policy.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am saying to the Foreign Secretary, as one of the people making that common policy, that the common policy must be to oppose torture wherever it is, particularly systematic and widespread torture in Turkey.

The question ranges, as you pointed out, Mr. Speaker, a long way beyond that on the Order Paper, but I have no difficulty in assuring the hon. Gentleman that of course the policies of Her Majesty's Government are opposed to torture.

Will the Foreign Secretary do all in his power to make sure that a European foreign policy does not become an anti-American foreign policy? Is he aware of the huge resentment in the United States about the indiscriminate dumping of steel from state-subsidised companies in Europe and about the disruption of world food markets, again by indiscriminate, subsidised dumping of food surpluses?

My hon. Friend refers to the other side of the coin that we discussed a moment ago. The fact is that on both sides of the Atlantic there is a problem to be tackled over the disposal of steel exports in today's world economic conditions. It is equally the case that American agricultural policy involves, in his words, dumping agricultural exports on the world market at subsidised prices. It is precisely because we need to resolve conflicts of that kind sensibly that we need to tackle them, and can benefit so much from tackling them, within the European Community rather than on our own.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of British relations with South Africa.

We are seriously concerned at the deterioration of the internal situation in South Africa and especially the imposition of a state of emergency. This underlines the urgent need for the rapid opening of a dialogue between the present South African Government and the genuine representatives of the non-white community. These grave developments inevitably have an effect on our bilateral relations.

Since the South African authorities clearly take little or no notice of representations from Her Majesty's Government, will the Foreign Secretary now open negotiations with our European partners with a view to establishing an EEC-wide ban on new investment in South Africa? Does the Foreign Secretary accept that such a policy would be neither disinvestment nor disengagement, but a worthwhile and effective way of securing the sort of changes that we all want to see in South Africa?

The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the value of approaching these questions in consultation with our partners in the European Community, which is why we issued the statement that we did on behalf of all the Foreign Ministers on Monday. He has not succeeded in persuading me that the proposal that he has in mind would be of value.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, faced with the increasing tide of black violence in South Africa, which includes murder, torture and alleged cannibalism, the South African Government had no choice but to bring in these emergency powers to protect innocent black lives? Will he also accept that the intervention of EC Foreign Ministers and of well-meaning Anglican bishops does nothing to encourage South Africa towards peaceful change?

I can understand that Governments of all sorts must consider what action is necessary to check violence and disorder. However, I do not find it easy to conclude that the measures taken by the South African Government at the weekend represent the best way of achieving the sort of progress that we want in South Africa. Nor is it right to conclude that we should refrain from commenting and pronouncing upon the aspects of the South African regime which we believe are unhelpful to the future of all people of that country.

Leaving aside the disgraceful remarks of apologists for South Africa that we have just heard, are not the present events in South Africa the inevitable result of the policies that have been pursued in that country since 1948? When will its rulers recognise that while the majority of people in that country are denied political and human rights there will never be peace? Is it the Foreign Secretary's intention to recall the British ambassador? Would that not be the most appropriate step to take at this time?

We have long made clear our view that the policy of apartheid on which the South African Government rest their case is misconceived, unjust, inappropriate and indefensible. Having said that, we think that the least helpful thing that we could do would be to withdraw our ambassador. One reason why we have an ambassador in post is precisely so that we can make clear to the South African Government the views of this Government.

rose——

Order. I remind the House that there is a statement on this matter later. I shall allow a short run of questions, but those who are fortunate enough to catch my eye now may not find it so easy later.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that there is to be a statement.

I have it wrong, and I apologise.

While the actions of the South African Government are very much to be deplored, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that all the so-called front-line states of central and southern Africa are trading vigorously with South Africa? Does he know of any proposal from any of those countries to impose economic sanctions?

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that a number of the front-line states have said that their relationship with South Africa would prevent them from complying with any recommendation for economic sanctions.

Will the Foreign Secretary make it quite clear to the South African Government that our Government believe that an imaginative and humanitarian gesture, such as the release of Nelson Mandela, would do far more to calm the position in South Africa than the introduction of all the instruments of oppression that have occurred during the last few days?

I and the Government have made it plain on many occasions that the South African Government need to take bold action to restore the possibility of dialogue, including the step mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. That does not lead me to conclude that they are likely to be encouraged in that direction by the imposition of sanctions. I well understand why those who deplore the policies of the South African Government as much as I do would like to see something being done. It is only after the most careful judgment that we have reached the plain conclusion that sanctions are likely to have the opposite effect to that desired.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it should be no part of British Government policy, nor would it be in British interests, to add fuel to any fire in South Africa? Will he continue to resist the siren voices of those who suggest that disinvestment would be in the interests of faster progress? That would surely be ineffective, unworkable and least in the interests of those whom it was designed to assist.

I have a great deal of sympathy with my hon. Friend's point. It was very well put by Mrs. Helen Suzman in Europe the other day, when she said:

"Such action in fact blunts the only weapon that Blacks have, or are in the process of acquiring—the economic muscle that accompanies upward mobility on the economic ladder by virtue of greater skills and increased consumer power."

While major differences remain between some of us and the Secretary of State, will he accept that many of us warmly endorse his call for bold steps to be taken by South Africa, such as the ending of detention, the release of people detained without trial and the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela? Having said that, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why his speech yesterday was bereft of even the most timid proposal to try to make South Africa implement steps to carry out the policies that he has apparently vigorously demanded?

Because after careful consideration, despite the unanimity of views about objectives, we share the view expressed, for example, by Mr. Alan Paton, that those who would pay most grievously for disinvestment would be the black workers in South Africa.

I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to continue to pay attention to the wisdom of people such as Alan Paton and Helen Suzman, both of whom are friends of mine, the chairman of the Anglo-American Corporation, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, and Chief Buthelezi, among many others, who have given a thorough, far-reaching and impressive analysis of the reasons why disinvestment would be a disastrous course of action. If Her Majesty's Government and the Foreign Ministers of the Ten are now to feel both obliged and entitled to interfere in the domestic affairs of another state, may I ask on what grounds we do not feel both entitled and obliged to proscribe to the Indian Government what they should do about civil violence in Ahmedabad, to the Singhalese Government what they should do about the civil and racial violence in Ceylon, and to many others? Are we not creating the most dangerous precedent?

My hon. Friend overlooks a crucial central fact, which is the extent to which the apartheid regime in South Africa is uniquely built on foundations of racial discrimination.

Will the Foreign Secretary also agree that the South African Government, since they were given an uncovenanted diplomatic triumph by the British Prime Minister a year ago, have invaded two neighbouring countries and have sabotaged their solemn commitment to facilitate independence in Namibia? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman believes that sanctions are always counter-productive, why did he support sanctions against Poland, why is he now supporting American sanctions against Nicaragua, secret details of which were revealed by a recent document leaked by a civil servant in a Government Department? Does he not agree that financial sanctions against Iran were instrumental in securing the release of the America hostages?

The right hon. Gentleman has posed a long catalogue of questions. We have always taken a profoundly sceptical view of the value of sanctions anywhere——

What about Poland and Nicaragua?

—and many of the points implied in his question are not justified by the facts. As a result of the meeting between President Botha, Mr. Botha the Prime Minister, and myself, there have been a number of significant steps, although not large enough, in the direction of reform in South Africa. The tragedy is that they have been blunted and frustrated by the other actions taken at the same time by the South African Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that perhaps the most constructive attitude that could be adopted by Her Majesty's Government would be to encourage South Africa to return to the radical reforms that it was undertaking before the latest violence occurred? Will the British Government do that and, in doing it, support the approach of Bishop Tutu in deploring the violence in the black townships? Will my right hon. and learned Friend outline some of the initiatives which he and the Government will encourage President Botha and his Government to introduce in the Republic of South Africa?

My hon. Friend is right to say that we should encourage the South African Government to take further the process of reform that had been under way in recent months. None of those steps go far enough, but they are a start. It is right also to endorse the message from Bishop Tutu that violence of any kind from either side can play only a destructive role in southern Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has as to the number of British citizens currently in Nicaragua.

There are currently estimated to be about 70 British citizens resident in Nicaragua.

Will the Minister condemn the actions of one British citizen recently in Nicaragua, an office bearer of the Federation of Conservative Students, Mr. Hoyle, who flaunted his participation with the Contras? Will he assure the House that, no matter where in the world it occurs, the Government will condemn participation with terrorists in actions against any democratically elected Government by any citizen of the United Kingdom, especially those with political responsibilities?

As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House remarked last week, I think that I am very much more frightened of the Federation of Conservative Students than the Sandinistas are likely to be. The gentleman who was in Nicaragua was not there as a supporter or delegate of Government policy.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that, unlike the citizens of many other countries, British citizens are permitted to go to any part of the world where a country will allow them to enter, and that when they are there they are entitled, by the freedoms that we are allowed, to make statements of their beliefs, whatever those statements are?

Yes, that is right. To refer to the original question, I do not think that British citizens who are in Nicaragua will take any great comfort from the decision of the Greater London council, supported by various Labour Members, to twin London with the Nicaraguan capital of Managua. I do not believe that they will find that a fruitful step.

Why does the Prime Minister condemn some forms of terrorism by some people and not condemn the terrorist action of Mr. Hoyle in taking part in this Contra attack? Why will the Minister not confirm that the Government are equally against that sort of action by an office bearer of the Federation of Conservative Students, which was quite outwith the bounds of any reasonable action? Why is the Minister facing both ways on this issue? Will he now condemn the action of this office bearer, Mr. Hoyle?

I suppose that I should congratulate the hon. Gentleman, on his return from Nicaragua, on having joined what The Observer described as the

"Sandanista bib-and-beret brigade".

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the implications of recent changes in immigration policy for matters within his responsibility.

Recent changes in immigration policy have concerned the imposition of a visa regime on Sri Lanka and the introduction of changes in the immigration rules. Both these subjects were debated in the House last night. These changes have caused or will cause an increase in entry clearance work overseas.

Has the Minister had the opportunity to read the report in the Official Report of the speech of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), who argued with some emotion that we are dealing with individuals and not statistics? Is he aware that queues in the different capitals and entry clearance posts in the subcontinent are likely to lengthen? Surely this is an inhumane way of dealing with the problem of immigration. Applicants are having to wait for 12 months and more for interviews. Will he accept that it is desperately important to consider humanely the possibility of applicants being interviewed far more quickly?

We must accept that if there is a change in the immigration rules which allows another new category to apply for entrance to the United Kingdom—for example, the husbands of women who are now settled in this country but not British citizens—there will be an increase in entry clearance work. We shall do our best within the resources available to us to ensure that the delays in the queues are kept to a minimum. We shall consider the possibility of equalising queue lengths between different countries in the Indian subcontinent.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the views of all the Opposition parties, including the Liberal party, the vast majority of people, including many immigrants, respect the Government's immigration policies as being firm and fair?

I very much appreciate my hon. Friend's point. When I was on the Indian subcontinent earlier this year and had the chance to see the entry clearance officers at work in Pakistan and Bangladesh, I came strongly to the conclusion that they try to apply the immigration rules as fairly and decently as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed the problems of Cyprus with the Secretary General of the United Nations; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of that discussion.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend had discussions with the Secretary General on 23 January and remain in close and frequent contact with him through official channels about the Cyprus problem. The Secretary General has made clear his determination to continue his efforts to bring about a settlement in Cyprus and we have expressed our strong support for his initiative.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is not good enough? Has he read early-day motion 915, which refers to the 11 years during which there has been an invasion of Cyprus? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, under a complacent Conservative Administration, Hitler invaded many European nations? What will the hon. Gentleman do about these problems? I am not satisfied with his answer. Action must be taken. Inaction has gone on for long enough. The problems should be sorted out.

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. We take a serious view of anything that worsens the situation in Cyprus. For that reason we opposed, and called for the reversal of, the so-called declaration of independence in 1983. We drafted and secured the adoption of United Nations Security Council resolution 541, which deplored the Turkish-Cypriot action and declared that it was legally invalid. We believe that all sides should do their utmost to support the Secretary General's efforts.

I do not want to waste the time of the House——

Everyone else has done so.

Does my hon. Friend realise that he has just answered the question that I wanted to put to him about the fact that the Government confirm that they strongly support United Nations resolutions 541 and 550 and recognise the Government of the Republic of Cyprus as the only Government in Cyprus?

I thank my hon. Friend for endowing me with the quality of perceptiveness, which I did not know I possessed. My hon. Friend has put the Government's position accurately and well.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention and that of the House to the fact that today's Foreign Office questions mark the end of the experimental period that began earlier this year. during which European Community questions temporarily lost their separate slot. This experiment was agreed between the usual channels, although there was inadequate consultation on either side. To take today's questions as an example, only two European Community questions were asked compared with the seven or eight that would previously have been asked. Whatever one may think of the European Community, it is not being viewed in the same light as the United States of America, the middle east, South Africa or any other part of the world, although it has the power to tax the British people and legislate for them, a power which other parts of the world do not have. May I therefore express the hope through you, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the House will take on board these comments, which have been conveyed to ham separately? I understand that some of the minority parties also feel strongly about this issue.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There were 81 oral questions on the Order Paper today to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, only nine of which were devoted to European Community matters. Most of us believe that the experiment has been a great success and we hope that it will continue in a permanent form. There seems to be no reason to devote 20 minutes of Question Time to the European Community when so many other pressing matters in the rest of the world await attention.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal party does not agree with the view of the hon. Member for Harborough (Sir J. Farr). It feels that you, Mr. Speaker, ought to exercise some benign influence over the Government to ensure that these matters are properly ventilated.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I add my support to the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins). The experiment has been a failure in the sense that the European Community impinges on so much of the business of this House. Whatever views hon. Members may have about the European Community, I believe they would prefer that slot to be reinstated, because this experiment has been a failure.

It might be for the convenience of the House if I drew its attention to the written answer that was given on 22 March, which initiated the present experiment. It said:

"The experiment will last until the summer recess to allow an opportunity for its success to be evaluated. Further discussions will then take place through the usual channels to determine whether the new arrrangement should become permanent." —[Official Report, 22 March 1985; Vol. 75 c. 625.]