asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards peace in the middle east.

The responsibility for making progress lies in the first place with the parties directly concerned. It is encouraging that both King Hussein and Mr. Peres now accept the need for an international framework for peace negotiations. We shall continue to support the efforts of all those who are working to find a way forward to negotiations.

Bearing in mind the rebuffs that King Hussein suffered when pursuing his peace initiative, will my right hon. and learned Friend try to ensure that a serious initiative is launched by the United States and Israel, which is from where it must now come, and, in particular, that Mr. Peres' speech is followed by detailed proposals, to be discussed at an international conference, which show a willingness by the Israelis to exchange territory for peace?

I am in general sympathy with my hon. Friend's point of view. An international conference may certainly have a part to play, but we are not yet convinced that the scene has been sufficiently set for that. The position certainly calls for a willingness by the Israeli Government to follow the lead offered by Mr. Peres' speech, and the role of the United States is indispensable to the progress of the peace process if King Hussein's initiative is to be carried forward, as we would all wish.

Does the Foreign Secretary share the hope that President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will find time in Geneva, among all their other concerns, to discuss their common interest in working together to produce stability and peace in the middle east?

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify regional questions as topics appropriate for discussion between the two superpowers, and I am glad that they have been appearing increasingly on the agenda for such discussions. Whether President Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev will be able to take that particular topic further forward at their present meeting is less certain. It should be an active item on their agenda.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the Soviet Union is to play a constructive role, which is by no means impossible, an essential prerequisite is that it resumes diplomatic relations with Israel?

We would certainly like to see wide international involvement in carrying the process forward. If, as part of that, the establishment of diplomatic relations were to come about, it would be welcomed.

What confidence can King Hussein have in future talks with the Government, given that the Government failed to live up to the letter of invitation to the Jordanian-PLO delegation, which led to the shambles in London earlier? If the Foreign Secretary is concerned that King Hussein's initiative should succeed in future, what statement would he make to give King Hussein and the PLO confidence that any future initiative proposed by him or the Prime Minister will have a chance of success?

The hon. Gentleman does not accurately—[Interruption.] I am reminded that I must welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House, and I gladly do so.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chilean Government regarding the reimposition of the state of seige in September.

The Chilean authorities lifted the state of seige on 17 June and replaced it with a state of emergency, which remains in force. We leave the Chilean authorities in no doubt about our concern at the continuation of human rights abuses in that country.

What representations have the Government made about the large number of people in Chile who have been arrested in the last few months? Specifically, have we taken up the cases of trade union leaders Manuel Bustos and Rodolfo Seguel?

We supported European Community representations made in October protesting against the detention of trade union leaders, and we have appealed for a national reconciliation.

Does my hon. Friend agree that what happens in a country such as Chile is none of our business? Has not the constant seeking of some countries to interfere gratuitously in the domestic affairs of other countries probably been the major cause of wars throughout the centuries? Does he agree that that should cease forthwith?

We have made it clear to the Chilean Government that we wish to see an orderly return to democracy in Chile. We believe that the national accord of 25 August provides a basis for that.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how frequently the Western Contact Group on Namibia has met over the past three months.

There has been no formal Contact Group meeting duing the last three months, but we and our Contact Group partners have remained in close touch.

Was not the group formed seven years ago on the assumption that it could deliver Namibian independence, and has it not utterly failed in the reason for its formation? Will the Government therefore consider a new initiative to the United Nations, rather than take actions such as vetoing the Security Council resolution on Namibia last week, which gave the impression to the world that Britain is South Africa's surrogate in the Security Council?

The hon. Gentleman's question displays an ignorance of what the Contact Group has achieved. Over the last few years it has been responsible for a wide range of agreements between the South African Government, the Front Line states and the various parties in Namibia about how the UN resolution should be implemented. We regret that that resolution has not yet been brought into effect in Namibia.

Recently, has not Cuban, and to some extent Soviet Union, support for the NPLA Government in Luanda increased? Until Cuban forces are withdrawn from Angola, will not a peaceful, fair and equitable settlement be impossible?

There have been disturbing signs of greater Soviet involvement in the actions of the Angolan Government against UNITA in the civil war. The Government believe it desirable that all foreign troops should be withdrawn from Angola—both South African and Cuban—and that the people of Angola should be allowed to determine their own future.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet representatives of black people in South Africa.

I have in recent months met Dr. Motlana of the Soweto Civic Association and the United Democratic Front, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and Chief Gatsha Buthelezi. I remain prepared to meet representatives of all shades of opinion within South Africa that are not committed to violence.

I wish that I could thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Where representation within a nation is denied, is it not all the more important to encourage talks with the disfranchised on the broadest international basis? Will the Government reconsider their present requirement for conditions to such talks?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend could not manage to summon up gratitude for my reply. I thank him for having repeated the points that he made on this topic in our recent debate. I shall, of course, continue to reflect upon them.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman had an opportunity to read the transcript of the evidence given a week or so ago to the Foreign Affairs Committee by Mr. Oliver Tambo? If so, does he agree that that evidence suggests a better opportunity for a way forward than many of us might have expected?

I have studied the evidence given by Mr. Tambo to the Select Committee. Indeed, it deserves study with care. However, the fact remains that the support by the ANC for a suspension of violence along the lines commended in the Commonwealth Heads of Government communiqué would not only enhance its reputation but help to promote the prospect of dialogue both inside and outside South Africa.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that it is not the ANC, or any other group, that is cruising round the townships in South Africa shooting people from armoured vehicles? He constantly repeats his commitment not to talk to people unless they renounce violence. Does that not apply first and foremost to the South African Government? Does he agree that throughout the history of this country there have been numerous cases—such as Kenyatta, Makarios, Gandhi and others—where we have been too late in recognising the view of the majority population?

I know that my hon. Friend has reflected considerably on this matter. Of course, if progress is to be made towards the dialogue that we want in South Africa, actions and changes are necessary on both sides. I do not believe that it is right to approach the question from the balance that my hon. Friend suggests. I agree that if the South African Government were to proceed swiftly to the unconditional liberation of Mr. Nelson Mandela, that would be an act of comparable importance and very valuable indeed.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to representatives of the black people in South Africa why a delegation from the Leeds chamber of commerce is currently on a commercial visit to South Africa with the support of Government money—despite the agreement reached in Nassau by the Commonwealth Heads of Government?

That is entirely different from the subject of the main question. The Government are in course of putting into effect the conclusions reached by the Commonwealth Heads of Government mission on that aspect, as on many other matters. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could be regarded as having served his constituents particularly well if a mission of that sort were to be interrupted and cut off in mid flight in the context of the policy change announced.

When my right hon. and learned Friend meets those representatives, will he bear in mind the extra burden placed on reformers within the South African Government as a result of recent by-elections in that country?

I think that I follow my hon. Friend's point of view, though I am at a loss to know who are the people who will meet me and to whom I am meant to express that view.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the mission from the Leeds chamber of commerce has not yet left this country, that it has been considering whether it should travel, and that the Government's decision, in spite of their undertaking to their Commonwealth partners, to fund the mission, is absolutely impossible to justify and is a grave offence to all the Prime Ministers at that conference who believed that the Government would carry out the undertakings that they solemnly gave?

I fail to understand the right hon. Gentleman's manifestation of concern on this issue. We have undertaken not to finance any new missions of this kind. This is a mission for which, I understand, undertakings have already been given. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right to be concerned that pledges given at Nassau are upheld, I do not understand why he should put his interests in that ahead of those of supporting missions to which we are already committed.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that to have any discussions with the black representation in South Africa would be wrong when the likes of Oliver Tambo can come to this House and condone, and continue to condone, violence, and when Nelson Mandela has repeatedly said that, even if he were released from prison, he would condone violence in any shape or form?

I could not go as far as my hon. Friend, who appears to be wanting me to repudiate the prospect of any discussions with black representatives in South Africa. We wish to see a suspension of violence on a basis that would enhance the prospects of a dialogue between black representatives and the South African Government. That is our position, and we stand by it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chilean Government regarding progress towards democracy in that country.

My right hon. and learned Friend recently reminded Senor Del Valle of the widespread interest in the United Kingdom in seeing an early return to democracy in Chile. We also welcome the opportunity provided by the national accord for Chile to make progress towards the restoration of a full and genuine democracy.

Does the Minister agree that these representations from the British Government would carry more weight and credibility if they refused to use their vote in the General Assembly in favour of Chile, if they refused to carry out their programme of training military personnel and if they refused to sell arms to Chile? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a change of direction in those policies would ensure that the Chilean Government took more notice of us?

Our vote in the United Nations will be decided on the merits of the resolution, which has not yet been circulated. We shall, of course, consider matters relating to arms when and if those issues arise.

I do not dissent from the action that Her Majesty's Government have taken in regard to Chile, but should we not beware of double standards here? Have we made representations to the Government of the Soviet Union and others in eastern Europe regarding the desirability of making progress towards democracy in those countries, bearing in mind not least the fact that they have signed the Helsinki agreement, which commits them to democracy and full human rights?

I have taken careful note of what my right hon. Friend has said. Of course, we always take the opportunity to make representations to the Soviet Union and its allies.

Does the Minister agree that it would be a matter of concern for Her Majesty's Government if arms supplied by this country had been used in the recent repression in Chile? Can he give a categorical guarantee that no arms supplied by this country have been used in that repression?

So far as we are aware, no such arms have been used.

Has my hon. Friend sought the views of the Chilean Government about the problems of the government of Northern Ireland? Apparently we take the views of all sorts of foreign Governments on the matter.

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point.

On a rather more serious note, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government welcome the national accord that has been signed by almost all the democratic parties in Chile? Will the Government join the increasing chorus of criticism of the repression carried out by General Pinochet and join my right hon. and hon. Friends in calling for the imposition of a complete embargo on arms sales to Chile? Will he give a specific assurance—he has said that the issue has not yet arisen—that no export licence will be granted by the British Government for the sale of Centaur armoured vehicles to Chile? We know that they will be used for internal repression.

As I have said to the House on at least two occasions, we have already made it clear to the Chilean Government that we welcome the national agreement on the transition to full democracy, which was issued on 25 August on behalf of the moderate political parties in Chile. There is no question about anything being done with the Centaur armoured vehicle except being returned to the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the latest representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the South African Government over the internal position in that country.

On 2 November we made it clear to representatives of the South African Government, both in London and Pretoria, that we were disturbed by the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of the press to report events in South Africa. These restrictions will do nothing to improve the prospects for that peaceful, fundamental change which we all seek.

Do the South African authorities really believe that banning television in that country will make the outside world lose interest? If they do, they will be proved entirely wrong. To take up the supplementary question of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), when will the British Government take effective action to support the cause of freedom in South Africa? Is the Foreign Secretary aware how sick and tired we are to hear constantly from the Government why action cannot be taken? By making excuses, they play into the hands of the apartheid regime.

I would rather put that the other way round. The British Government have been taking sustained and determined action to promote the changes in policy that are necessary if we are to secure the ending of apartheid by peaceful means as quickly as possible. The British Government fought tenaciously and valiantly to establish a position agreed by all the Commonwealth Heads of Government in Nassau. We are now working to secure the prospect of success for that Commonwealth eminent persons group. I would rather say that the House is sick and tired of the hon. Gentleman casting aspersions on every genuine attempt that the Government make to secure those ends.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that much of the violence and reporting in and from South Africa has been grossly exaggerated by the world's press, not least by the BBC, in much biased reporting of the sad events that have taken place? While the ban on the press is to be regretted, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in the circumstances it was almost unavoidable? Is it not better for the Government to continue some form of dialogue than to take the road that is advocated by the Opposition, which involves sanctions and isolation?

I understand my hon. Friend's arguments and agree absolutely with his closing point. It is of the utmost importance for us to do all that we can to promote dialogue in South Africa. We would like nothing better than to see the South African Government taking the decisive steps that are necessary to move in that direction.

Will the Foreign Secretary explain the exact context in which the Prime Minister used the phrase "teeny-weeny concession"?

The right hon. Gentleman appears sufficiently well-informed to make a judgment for himself.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that when he discusses the internal position of South Africa, one of the things that worries that Government is Amnesty International's report on Zimbabwe, which shows that more repression is carried out by blacks on blacks than even that imposed by whites on blacks? Does that not have to be taken into consideration?

Unhappily, there are many reports of human mistreatment of fellow human beings in many countries, and they all have to be taken in their context.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made at the review conference on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty; and what proposals Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue.

We are pleased that, in contrast to 1980, this year the review conference produced an agreed document. We warmly welcome this. We intend to work to implement the conference's recommendations for improving the International Atomic Energy Authority safeguards system, and the transfer of nuclear technology to developing countries. Many of the recommendations were proposed by the United Kingdom.

The most important measure sought at the review conference was the conference on the comprehensive test ban treaty. Does not the Government's stance on verification look increasingly feeble, because the new technical developments, as even the technology page in yesterday's Financial Times showed, would make detection and verification simple? We should ask the Government to review their position on the subject, or be driven to the conclusion that the United Kingdom is resistant to the possibility of such a treaty because it wants to test its own Trident missiles before preventing people from conducting similar tests.

Yes, I too read the article in yesterday's Financial Times. I agree that the experiments in Norway lead to a possible avenue which is well worth pursuing. The key requirement continues to be for the Soviet Union to accept the monitors that have now been invented. I disagree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's final point. We are committed to the goal of an effective comprehensive test ban, but the word effective is crucial to this. We are not yet convinced that verification developments can lead to a foolproof test ban system.

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest threats that we face is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by unstable and fanatical regimes? Will he vigorously support proposals to open all nuclear installations to international inspection and to halt the spread of uranium enrichment technology?

Yes, Sir. One of the successes of the nonproliferation treaty, to which another 17 countries have become members in the past five years, has been the halting of horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons, while encouraging peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to arrange the recall of British military attaches from South Africa.

Both British military attaches accredited to the Republic of South Africa have now been recalled.

I am delighted by that reply, because, early in September, I asked the Prime Minister whether we would consider breaking off all diplomatic links with South Africa. In view of the serious situation in South Africa, will the Government consider breaking off diplomatic relations with that country?

We think that that would be an extrmely foolish action to take. The Commonwealth Heads of Government conference decided to seek a dialogue between the Commonwealth and the South African Government. To contemplate action of the type recommended by the hon. Gentleman would fly in the face of that approach.

I very much regret the recall of the military attaches. If the Government change their mind and those attachés eventually return to South Africa, will my hon. Friend ensure that they return via Delville Wood, the Sangro river, El Alamein, Sidi Rezegh and the many other cemeteries in which the South African dead of the second world war are buried?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the valiant contribution during the second world war by many black and white South Africans and people from other parts of Africa. I think he will appreciate, however, that we are seeking to do what we can to make clear our disapproval and detestation of apartheid, but not in a way that damages the economic prospects of the South African people.

On 25 September we agreed with our EEC partners not only to recall our military attachés in South Africa but to refuse to grant accreditation to South African military attaches in this country. Is it not the Government's policy that the military attachés in the South African eembassy in London can remain until they are recalled by their Government?

The point that the hon. Gentleman has put to me is a matter that is currently under consideration by the Foreign Ministers of the European Community. At this stage, only Belgium and Luxembourg have taken the decision to ask for the recall of South African attachés from their capitals. The matter is under active consideration at present.

Has not anxiety been expressed in this House about South African military excursions into neighbouring territories? Is it not therefore stupid to withdraw from South Africa those who would be able to assess and report on those operations to Her Majesty's Government?

Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the action that we have taken will not, in practice, jeopardise such information that we have about the matters to which my hon. Friend referred. We have always made it clear that incursions by South African troops into neighbouring sovereign states is a matter to be condemned and discouraged at every available opportunity.

As, most commendably, it is the Government's policy to oppose terrorism on every front, will my hon. and learned Friend say why the African National Congress is allowed to operate through its attaches out of an office in London?

As my hon. and learned Friend will be aware, the British Government's policy has always been that individuals are free to set up any office that they wish in London as long as their actions and activities do not conflict with British law. If there is any evidence that any individual in such an office is taking action that conflicts with our law, steps will be taken to deal with that matter at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress has been made at the EEC intergovernmental conference; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions are continuing at both ministerial and official level with a view to presenting recommendations for consideration by Heads of Government at the European Council on 2 and 3 December.

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his reply is, word for word, what I expected and what I have already written down? Is there a possibility, or even a faint hope, that one day he will come to the Dispatch Box and tell us about the chaos within the EEC and whether ministerial talks are failing? Will there be a more blunt approach to the problems? Is it not time that he tackled matters with rather more vigour than he has hitherto done?

I am delighted not to have disappointed the hon. Gentleman with the terms of my reply. He asked what progress was being made in the conference which is to take place in less than a fortnight from now. I shall be glad to report to him what progress has been made at that conference, when it has taken place.

I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the negotiations that are taking place at the moment leading to the intergovernmental conference. Will he assure me that at the moment there is no question of the European Parliament's consent being attached to the decision on whether the treaties could be revised under article 236?

A number of proposals have been put forward by a number of states that relate to possible amendments of the treaties. I do not recollect any of them dealing with that point.

As it is known that there are proposals at the conference for the establishment of a permanent staff to the presidency, particularly in respect of the mode of European extra-treaty co-operation, and suggestions for enhancing the powers of the Strasbourg Assembly, will the Foreign Secretary tell us whether proposals tabled by Her Majesty's Government, such as the Stresa memorandum and matters that he mentioned in a recent speech, are to be made public and, if so, in what manner?

We have put forward no new proposals in the context of the intergovernmental conference. The practical proposals that we put forward earlier this year for the Stresa meeting are still on the table, and have been placed in the Library.

When considering the proposals put forward to enhance the powers and involvement of the European Parliament in Community affairs, decision-making and the composition of that Parliament, will my right hon. and learned Friend, bear in mind the difficulty that it has in achieving consistent policy decisions owing to its shifting political balance and its recent activities with regard to the EEC's budget?

My hon. Friend has drawn attention to relevant points. Our purpose is to enhance the Community's effectiveness, especially its decision-making procedures. I shall bear those points in mind.

Why is the right hon. and learned Gentleman in favour of giving more powers to the European Assembly when such powers can only be at the expense of the powers of the British House of Commons?

I have reached no conclusions as to any such change. We are examining proposals as they come forward for consideration at the conference. It would not be right to conclude that the powers of the European Parliament could be enhanced only at the expense of the House. They could be enhanced at the expense of other Community institutions. It is because of the diversity of choices that could be made that we are most anxious that any change enhances the effectiveness of the Community's decision-taking procedure.

Why is it appropriate for Ministers to brief the press after meetings of the intergovernmental conference, but not to brief the House of Commons on the position of the British Government in the lead-up to the Luxembourg summit? When will we be told precisely what stage the negotiations have reached and what the likely stance of the United Kingdom will be at the summit that will take place in only 10 days' time? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House now what the stance of the Government is on improved Customs union, a permanent secretariat on foreign affairs, increased powers for the European Parliament through amendments to the treaty and specifically on the French initiative tabled yesterday for increased European union, which is apparently to be one of the surprise subjects that will be dealt with at the Heads of Government summit next weekend?

The hon. Gentleman has indicated the breadth of his curiosity and indeed to some extent his knowledge of the subject. As he said, the French proposal was tabled yesterday. It will be discussed in the context of the many other proposals before the conference. We shall judge whatever proposals finally emerge by whether they make a real difference to the achievement of our objectives, above all for completion of a genuine common market.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy towards South Africa.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the situation in South Africa.

We are working for the total elimination of apartheid and for rapid progress towards a genuinely non-racial democracy in South Africa.

I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Has he had an opportunity to meet and offer encouragement to any of the South African industrialists, business men and others who recently visited Lusaka? If not, has he plans to do so?

I have had contact with at least one of the South African business men. We have obviously noted with interest the efforts being made by the South African business community to persuade their Government to work for a more rapid dismantlement of the apartheid system.

On the question of sanctions, will the Minister heed the words of black South African leaders such as Oliver Tambo, who recently told the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs that real and effective sanctions would be welcomed by the majority of the South African people, who are prepared to make further sacrifices so as to overthrow the apartheid regime and bring about the liberation of the majority of the people? Has the stubborn refusal of the British Tory Government to implement real and effective sanctions against South Africa got anything to do with the fact that many of the British based companies with vested financial interests in South Africa are also big contributors to the financial coffers of the Tory party?

Mr. Tambo is only able to put forward his own views and those of his organisation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Chief Buthelezi, who speaks for many millions, takes the opposite view. With regard to whether the British Government's view on sanctions is because of an alleged connection with donations made by British companies to the Conservative party, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government also strongly opposed economic sanctions. I leave it to the hon. Gentleman to inquire from his own leadership whether that was because of secret donations to the Labour party.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that Her Majesty's Government have no more right to interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa, a sovereign state, than they have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of the United States of America or Soviet Russia?

I agree with my hon. Friend that one must always be cautious when commenting on the internal affairs of any country. The need for a peaceful resolution of the problems of South Africa is not only of importance to the people of South Africa but has profound implications for the stability of southern Africa and for wider international issues.

As the South African Government have chosen to stop the media, including the British media, telling the truth about what is happening in that country, why do the British Government allow the South African ambassador to remain here and to use the media, including the British media, to propagate lies about what is happening in South Africa?

I notice that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to see the recall of other ambassadors from countries with which we have equally profound differences of opinion. I ask him at least to try to be consistent in his approach.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is to be real change in South Africa, it will come from within? Will he wholeheartedly support the many industrialists—I met one who came back from negotiating with the African National Congress in Lusaka—who publicly and openly condemn apartheid?

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to emphasise that at the end of the day profound change will come because of factors and pressure operating within South Africa. One of the most encouraging developments is the increasing proportion of white South Africans, including those from the Afrikaner community, who are taking the lead in calling for much more fundamental and radical reform from their own Government.

Does the Minister accept that the Government's laudable intentions to see the end of apartheid in South Africa will be widely accepted? However, does he realise that intentions are not enough? Will the "teeny weeny" measures that the Prime Minister said were being taken against South Africa be built up into bigger measures after the six months have gone by?

We have always made it clear that we are prepared to contemplate measures that show our disapproval of and do damage to apartheid, but we are not prepared to support measures designed to destroy the South African economy to the disadvantage of all South Africans, black and white.

Following that reply, will my hon. and learned Friend also bear in mind, when he is considering British policy towards South Africa, what the effect of sanctions could be on neighbouring countries, particularly if miners native to neighbouring countries have to be sent home as a result of the imposition of economic sanctions?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter. One has noticed in recent months that Swaziland has been opposed to economic sanctions, Botswana has said that it intends to campaign neither for nor against economic sanctions, thereby showing its sensitivity to the matter, and the Zimbabwean Government have said that while they approve of sanctions, they would expect to be compensated for their effect.

Would it help the success of the Commonwealth mission if the British Government said, as the Prime Minister did, that if the mission is not successful there are no further measures in the direction of sanctions that the British Government are prepared to contemplate?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that our efforts at the moment are concentrated on the eminent persons group that the Commonwealth has decided to appoint. We hope very much that the objective of the group, which is to establish a dialogue with all those in South Africa who can help towards the evolution of fundamental reform, will be successful.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken to seek to discourage scientific agreements between bodies in Britain and South Africa by Her Majesty's Government.

We know of only one formal scientific agreement between British and South African public bodies, and it is due to expire in June 1986. We agreed as part of the Luexembourg measures to discourage those scientific agreements with South Africa which could have a role in supporting apartheid.

In view of the instability of the South African Government, are the Government not concerned about having an official agreement on nuclear development? Why should South Africa further enjoy associate membership of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority systems reliability service? All those matters cause great concern among people in this country, especially with such an unstable country as South Africa.

As I said to the hon. Gentleman, we know of only one scientific agreement between the United Kingdom and South Africa. It relates to the South African astronomical observatory and is due to expire on 30 June 1986. Indeed, the decision to allow it to expire was not taken in the context of the agreement that I announced earlier.

What positive benefit to the black community is likely to come from banning scientific agreements between the United Kingdom and South Africa?

I remind my hon. Friend that we specifically insisted, when the wording of the agreement was settled at Luxembourg, that we should discourage scientific agreements that could have a role in supporting apartheid, and we had no desire or intention of discouraging any agreements, either scientific or cultural, which could have no possible conection with apartheid. For example, we were particularly anxious to ensure that the work of the British Council, which is concentrating on assisting the black community in South Africa, would not be impeded by any measures of the sort proposed.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will discuss the situation in South Africa with representatives of the African National Congress.

We recognise the African National Congress as one important focus of black South African opinion and aspirations. The Commonwealth accord called for a lifting of the existing ban on the ANC and other political parties in South Africa and for the beginning of a process of dialogue in the context of a suspension of violence on all sides. Clearly, the ANC's support for such a suspension of violence would enhance its reputation and help to promote dialogue within South Africa and with those outside the country who seek a peaceful political solution to that country's problems.

Is it not spectacular hypocrisy for the Government to condemn violent opposition to the violent system of apartheid while at the same time opposing effective sanctions, which must be the only alternative to violence in overthrowing the system? Since we all know that the African National Congress would infinitely prefer a peaceful route to liberation, will the Government now enter into sensible negotiations with the ANC, which is the universally accepted representative of the majority in South Arica?

I repudiate absolutely the hon. Gentleman's simplistic view that the only alternative to the present position is the imposition of sanctions. I agree that the suspension of violence by all sides would be desirable. That is what we are seeking, alongside the promotion of dialogue with the leaders of black Africa and the South African Government.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend finally explode the myth that the ANC speaks for the majority of black people in South Africa? Does he agree that Chief Buthelezi, who speaks for about 7 million Zulus, has a far stronger voice and preaches peaceful reform rather than violence? Is it not disgraceful that a House of Commons Select Committee asked a violent revolutionary such as Oliver Tambo to give evidence to it rather than asking a peaceful man such as Chief Buthelezi?

The Select Committee must be accountable for its actions and decisions. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that Chief Buthelezi is an outstanding example of someone who speaks for many millions of South Africans and who is not committed to violence.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the importance which the Government attach to the draft directives currently under discussion in the EC, with particular reference to those in the social field.

Our attitude depends on whether a proposal would implement the objectives of the European Community treaty, whether adequate measures already exist in the individual member states and on the regulatory burden which would result from the adoption of a Community instrument.

That is a disappointing reply. Can the Minister explain why the Government intend to veto the already watered-down draft directive on parental leave and why, in the case of directives on workers' information and consultation and part-time working, the United Kingdom always appears to put up the blocks?

The Government believe, as a general rule, that such matters are best arranged voluntarily between employees and employers. In addition, there is no advantage in Governments imposing additional burdens on employers that could act contrary to the interests of creating jobs and maintaining employment.

Have the Government any information on whether the South African Government have access to nuclear weapons technology, and will the Minister make a statement?

Order. This question is about the EC.

Will my hon. and learned Friend be robust in maintaining the point that he has just made so that he does not allow these strange social measures to creep in and make us even less competitive than we are now?

My hon. Friend is correct. One initiative taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is to achieve greater deregulation in the Community to reduce the existing burden, especially on smaller businesses and firms with few employees. The last thing that we would wish to do would be to introduce or support measures that would increase the burden at this difficult time.

Will the Minister abandon all this gobbledegook and Eurospeak? Will he admit that the Government have accepted directive after directive in all other areas—including one to ensure that the temperature at the centre of frozen peas is uniform throughout Europe—but have systematically opposed all directives on progressive social legislation and workers' rights? Has it been caused by a directive from the new, unelected Secretary of State for Employment, or is it merely the result of the Government's well-known dogma?

I am delighted and slightly amused by the fact that the Labour party has suddenly been converted to the desirability of European action imposed throughout the Community. We have not previously heard such a view from Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. We are indeed selective. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, we consider each proposal on its merits.

Will the Minister confirm that there is under consideration a directive to give assistance to agricultural projects in the peripheral areas of the Community, including the Scottish islands? Will he confirm that the United Kingdom Government will not seek to reduce the amount of money that will go into such projects?

Obviously the United Kingdom Government wish to ensure that the maximum resources from Community proposals and projects should come to the United Kingdom. Clearly that is an objective that any British Government would be anxious to pursue. We will take that into account as one of the factors when considering any proposals put before us.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures are being taken by Her Majesty's Government to seek to discourage cultural ties and exchanges between Britain and South Africa.

We have agreed to discourage those cultural events and agreements which could have a role in the support of apartheid. British Council activities in South Africa are unaffected, since they are directed essentially towards black education. There are no cultural agreements between ourselves and the South African Government.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain why it is that retired professors in this country go to South Africa to talk about Shakespeare? How is it that The Guardian film critic can go to the film festival? How are those things possible when the United Nations has made a clear decision that there should be a cultural boycott of South Africa? Is it not a fact that British Council money is used as a device to allow certain people to break that boycott?

If cultural proposals could be shown to be helpful or supportive of apartheid, we would be strongly opposed to them. I do not accept the proposition that the diffusion of Western values, ideas and culture to both blacks and whites in South Africa is an undesirable policy. I argue quite the opposite. If we seek to persuade the South African Government to impose all the values of Western culture, civilisation and our political system, it would be absurd simultaneously to try to cut off South Africa from examples of Western culture.

I heartily agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Why are we in general so severe in our attitude towards the Government of South Africa, which is friendly to the West and, at the same time, friendly towards many other countries in southern Africa whose internal conditions are far worse?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the substantial problems of human rights that exist in many countries in Africa. However, in the case of South Africa, there is the additional factor that the South African Government have always maintained that South Africa is part of Western society and that they apply Western values. We are entitled to draw attention to those aspects of their policy that are contrary to that claim.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Government intend to take action following the nonproliferation treaty review conference to try to secure agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty; and if he will make a statement.

We have been trying to achieve progress towards a comprehensive test ban treaty for some time, particularly at the conference on disarmament in Geneva, where we have tabled a paper on seismic monitoring as a contribution to resolve the difficulties that still stand in the way of a treaty. A copy of this paper is available in the Library of the House.

Is it just an insensitive coincidence that the first exercise in the deployment of American cruise missiles from Greenham common for four months should occur right in the middle of the Gorbachev-Reagan summit? Is this the American military's way of telling us that the summit will not change anything? Were the British Government consulted in advance about the decision to take these ground-launched cruise missiles on to Salisbury plain this morning?

As a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said this morning, the deployment of the cruise missiles was purely fortuitous. On the matter of the summit, may I remind the hon. Gentleman of what a White House spokesman said last night, that those who talk at the moment will not know, and those who know will not talk? At this stage in the summit that is sensible advice to follow.

Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that a comprehensive test ban treaty is of the utmost importance, and that the argument about verification is no longer valid? Will he and his colleagues press ahead with this matter?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend's first point, but do not agree with his second one. It is necessary to arrive at a system in which there is clear differentiation between seismic disturbances caused by natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, and disturbances caused by low level nuclear explosions. The problem of such differentiation has not yet been solved, nor has the problem of peaceful nuclear explosions. Many countries want to continue such explosions, while wanting to stop military nuclear explosions, but it is obvious that peaceful explosions could be relevant to military purposes.

Does the Minister agree that leading seismologists in Britain, Canada and the United States now agree that it is physically and scientifically possible to distinguish natural convulsions from underground explosions? The hon. Gentleman referred with approval to an article in yesterday's Financial Times. Since the nonproliferation treaty review conference asked the nuclear powers to resume negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty before the end of the year, will the Government take the initiative in inviting other nuclear powers to such a conference immediately?

Seismologists differ on technical matters, just as economists do, as the right hon. Gentleman will remember from his days as Chancellor of the Exchequer. I suggest that he reads the paper tabled by the United Kingdom in July, which shows some of the difficulties of seismic monitoring. It emphasises the difficulties, about which many experts agree. It is essential that steps be taken on verification as a prelude to genuine discussions about a comprehensive test ban. We hope that that will continue in the conference on disarmament.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your advice? You will have noticed the discussion on question No. 10 concerning the intergovernmental conference of the European Community. Since Britain's accession to the EC, Ministers have regularly reported on the outcome of European Council meetings to the House. We have had no reports from any Ministers on any European Council meetings since the new Session began. A Foreign Ministers Council is meeting in almost permanent session at an intergovernmental conference, but all that the House has to rely on are confused and confusing newspaper reports about the conference and the stance of British Ministers. The meeting is a prelude to the Heads of Government summit, which is to take place at the end of next week and the beginning of the following one. The abandonment of the principle that Ministers report to the House must concern you as well as the rest of us. Can we seek your protection to ensure that Ministers no longer keep the House in the dark on these vital issues?

The hon. Gentleman knows that whether the Government seek to make a statement is not a matter for me.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I raised a point of order with you yesterday—

Order. I shall deal with that in a moment, if I may.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Several Conservative Members have spoken on South African matters. I have looked up the Register of Members' Interests. Several of the hon. Members who spoke did not declare that they have made trips to South Africa paid for by the South African authorities. Would it not be better if we changed our procedures so that the House knows, without having to look up the Register of Members' Interests, that sponsored trips have been made by the hon. Member—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has asked a question that I can answer. It is not necessary during Question Time to declare an interest, because it will appear in the Register of Members' Interests. If the hon. Gentleman wants a change in the procedures, he should take the matter up with the Select Committee on Procedure.