asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to Nicaragua.

My right hon. and learned Friend has at present no plans to do so.

In the absence of a visit, what steps are being taken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to support stability in Nicaragua so that democracy can flourish? In what strong terms has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office protested to President Reagan about the trade, terrorist and psychological vendetta which is being waged by the United States against that country and which can only bring about the reverse of what the President hopes for?

We want Nicaragua to make progress towards genuine democracy and to end its arms build-up and support for the subversion of its neighbours. We very much regret the recent suspension of civil liberties, which we regard as a step in the wrong direction. United States' policy is a matter for the United States.

Has my hon. Friend made any representations to the Government of Nicaragua about their outrageous anti-humanitarian action in blocking British helicopters from Nicaraguan air space when they were on their way to give urgently needed relief to the victims of the Colombian earthquake?

My hon. Friend shares widespread concern about this matter. I think that the press reports were based on misunderstanding. There was some difficulty in telephone communications between London and Managua regarding the transit of the helicopters.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in answers to me and to others, he said that the forces were well satisfied with the co-operation that they had received from Nicaraguan authorities with respect to helicopter overflights? How does he envisage the continued American action against Nicaragua helping the essential process of restoring the plural democracy and stability which many people in Nicaragua still believe can be achieved and which were originally part of the objectives of the Nicaraguan revolution?

I confirm the replies that I gave about the helicopters. The Americans continue to support the Contadora process.

Is my hon. Friend aware of the daft suggestion of the so-called moderate leader of Haringey council, Councillor Bernie Grant, who said that only Nicaraguan coffee beans could be sold and distributed in the council chamber and around Haringey? Is that not just as daft and offensive as poor old Leicester city council trying to twin with Nicaragua?

Order. That is a bit wide of a visit.

I understand that Haringey council's leader has directed that only Nicaraguan coffee should be drunk in the Haringey civic centre. I understand also that the coffee has a distinctive taste, which may not please the majority of people unless they are used to it. The same could be said about Mr. Bernie Grant.

:Does the Minister agree that it is time that the Government, as a friend of the Government of the United States, informed them that Britain believes genuinely in democracy and that they should stop their nonsense in relation to Nicaragua because it is driving that country into the Soviet sphere of influence, which is what happened to Cuba in the past? Will the Americans never learn from their mistakes?

We have our policy with regard to Nicaragua. As I have said, we support the comprehensive and verifiable Contadora agreement, which is based on the 21 Contadora principles. The American Government also support the agreement.

Does the Minister not see the contradiction in making comments about Nicaragua but refusing to say anything about American policy towards it? Has he noted that President Betancur, who is the architect of Contadora, has said that the greatest single obstacle to achieving peace in central America is continued American support of the Contras? That goes for military as well as financial support. Will the British Government break away from the coat-tails of America for once and condemn financial and military aid to the Contras?

I would listen with a great deal more respect to the hon. Gentleman if he, for once, condemned the recent suspension of civil liberties by the Nicaraguan Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to pay an official visit to South Africa.

I have at present no plans to visit South Africa.

That is a pity, Mr. Speaker. Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept from me that words such as "Parliament", "Government" and "democracy" are an abuse of the English language when applied to a system which excludes the majority of the people from participation therein? May I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to find a form of words to describe accurately a regime which deprives the majority of civil rights, herds them into townships and controls them with armoured vehicles?

I have no doubt that my hon. Friend expresses feelings that are shared by many —indeed, by most—British people about the system of apartheid. The task is not to condemn it—which I do unreservedly—but to try to promote constructive steps to bring about its early disappearance.

If the Secretary of State were to make a trip to South Africa, would he be congratulating those responsible for the formation three weeks ago of COSATU—the Congress of South African Trade Unions—and on bringing together 34 non-racial independent trade unions representing about 500,000 black workers and workers of other races in South Africa, or, instead of identifying himself with those who create wealth in South Africa, would he be congratulating firms, such as Consolidated Gold Fields which made a profit of £105 million last year by paying the black miners of South Africa £21 to £25 a week? Which of those two institutions would he be most likely to congratulate?

I should avoid the simplicity of choice which always commends itself to the hon. Gentleman. I would commend those firms which seek to maintain investment and economic activity in South Africa to pay special attention to the European Community's extended code, which encourages them to do more than they have done so far in promoting the rights of black trade unions in South Africa.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the course of action proposed by Labour Members, and, unfortunately, by some of my misinformed hon. Friends, to engage in dialogue with the African National Council is especially dangerous and foolhardy in the light of recent terrorist killings which have taken place within South Africa's borders? Will he condemn those killings by that terrorist organisation and commend the South Arican Government for their restrained response to these incidents?

We have already made it clear that we deplore the loss of life arising from the recent land mine incidents. We have always condemned violence as a means of achieving political objectives. A suspension of violence would do much to facilitate the dialogue that we all agree is needed urgently in South Africa. We have made clear to the South African Government our condemnation of all forms of cross-border violence.

Does the Secretary of State agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)? As a young aircrew cadet in 1941, many years ago, I served in South Africa. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, despite what some of his hon. Friends say, the situation in South Africa now, with pass laws, is more vicious than it was 45 years ago.

I have no doubt that the position compared with 45 years ago has deteriorated in a number of respects, because there has been significant political change in South Africa. While making that point, it is also fair to acknowledge that in recent times the South African Government have embarked upon a policy of limited but specific reform, moving in some respects in the right direction. We need to encourage them to proceed at a much faster pace. Our task must be to promote the dialogue that is essential to a peaceful dismantlement of the system of apartheid.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that once more taking up our position as one of the five countries of the Contact Group that was charged with trying to negotiate a settlement in Namibia would rejuvenate our interest, lead us not to rely solely on American initiatives and put added pressure on the South African Government to enter into a dialogue with the majority populations in both those countries?

I agree with my hon. Friend that, when looking at the larger South African problem, we should not forget the importance of implementing resolution 435 in relation to Namibia. The Contact Group is one organisation that can contribute to that, and so is the American-led negotiating process. It is certainly an objective that I keep firmly in mind.

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not recognise the danger to our foreign position of being so isolated and closely identified with the oppressor, the racists and the fat cats in South Africa? Is not the essential hypocrisy of the Government's position shown by the fact that while in international forums they regularly call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nelson Mandela, should that happen tomorrow they would refuse to meet him because he is a member of the ANC?

The hon. Gentleman has a capacity for over-simplifying the most complex questions. There is no doubt that the unconditional release of Nelson Mandela would be a major act of national reconciliation within South Africa, which in turn would be an important step towards a more wide-ranging and peaceful dialogue.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to assess the degree to which the Arab populations of the West Bank and Gaza regard the Palestine Liberation Organisation as their legitimate representatives in any discussions on the future of the middle east; and if he will make a statement.

During my recent middle east tour I met leading Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. They made it clear that the Palestine Liberation Organisation is widely regarded by the local Arab population as its representative.

Why then will the Government not take a crucial step and recognise the PLO as the sole, legitimate representative of the aspirations of the Palestinian people by meeting its representatives officially and including them in any further talks on the middle east?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we agreed to the inclusion of two Palestinians in the recent Jordanian-Palestinian delegation that came to London. Unfortunately, in the end, they were not willing to sign the resolution that had been agreed in advance. The question of the recognition of the PLO does not arise, because we recognise states only.

Will my hon. Friend confirm that unless and until that organisation as a whole—regardless of the views of individual members—renounces terrorism and violence and accepts the right of Israel to exist, there can be no question of any contact or recognition of the PLO by this Government?

As I have already said, the question of the recognition of the PLO does not arise. We have urged its leaders to renounce violence and to accept Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised frontiers. It was on that basis that we said we were prepared to meet individual Palestinians who had followed that course.

Leaving aside the PLO or any other specific organisation, in general is it not nonsense to demand that an organisation, which firmly says that it believes that its problems cannot be solved by negotiation but only by military means, should be brought into negotiations?

The hon. Gentleman is simplifying a complex situation in the middle east. The fact is that all those who wish to move the peace process forward recognise that at some stage it will have to involve the Palestinians. A great many Palestinians still regard the PLO as their sole legitimate organisation. It is within that framework that at the moment some middle east leaders are trying to see how the PLO can be associated with discussions.

If the Palestinians are to be criticised for violence and terrorism, should we not likewise criticise the Government of Israel for locking up 12 and 13-year-old children for throwing stones and then not allowing their parents to visit them?

We condemn violence and terrorism in the middle east, from whatever side or source it comes.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the Government's reply to the Foreign Affairs Committee's third report of Session 1984–85 on the events surrounding the weekend of 1 and 2 May 1982.

None, Sir.

Before putting their signature to their response to the Select Committee's report, did Ministers know of the first and more truthful draft of Sir John Nott's speech on 4 May 1982, talking about "attacking" rather than "detecting"? If they did not know, are we to believe that the efficient civil servants of the Foreign Office did not show it to them, and, if they did know, are they not misleading the Select Committee?

Who cares?

As one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends says, "Who cares?". Ministers knew, and the officials did not mislead Ministers.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if, as a result of the events of 1 and 2 May that year, a big British ship had gone down, which the Argentines were doing their best to effect, he would find it much more difficult to answer this question? Secondly, will he bear in mind that the allegations that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been making are totally disproved by the evidence? Finally, will he do what he can to see that the hon. Gentleman stops making such a thumping ass of himself?

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I regret that I and others will probably go on trying to help the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) without success.

Who said "Who cares"?

Order.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred—

No.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the Jordanian Foreign Minister; and if he will make a statement.

We remain in close touch with the Jordanian Government, but I have no plans at present for a further meeting with the Jordanian Foreign Minister.

Bearing in mind the real risk that King Hussein has taken in trying to get his peace initiative off the ground in the middle east, what action will the British Government take in the new year to get Israel and the United States fully to support that initiative and the concept of exchanging territory for proper peace?

My hon. Friend rightly identifies the principles upon which progress must be built in the Arab-Israel conflict. He is also right to identify the immense value of the constructive efforts of King Hussein over a long time to achieve progress in that direction. We shall continue to give our fullest support to his efforts, with the United States and other countries.

The Foreign Secretary will know that last week President Mubarak said that the past six months of the peace process have been wasted, and that trying to solve the problem and at the same time trying to ignore the PLO would never lead to a comprehensive peace? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that view?

Sadly, the past six months have not seen as much progress as I personally would have hoped towards a possible solution of the problem. That is why we gave as much support as we could to the efforts of King Hussein during that period. We extended our invitation to the joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation to come here because we have always recognised that the PLO should be associated with negotiations, provided that it renounces violence and is committed to a peaceful settlement along familiar lines.

Is any progress being made towards an international conference, as proposed by King Hussein? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that such a conference, involving the Soviet Union, the United States and the parties directly involved, such as the Palestinians, is the best hope of making some progress?

I agree that support for initiatives towards a peaceful settlement, from whichever side they come, should be as broadly based as possible. An international conference might well help in that direction. That is why I am glad that Mr. Peres, the Prime Minister of Israel, made clear to the United Nations his understanding of the need for such an international framework. He has that in common with my hon. Friend and King Hussein.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Israel.

I visited Israel from 12 to 16 December. In my talks there I had a useful exchange of views on bilateral matters and regional and international issues. I also met Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

I am grateful to the Minister for that statement. During his discussions, did he get any information that he can share with the House about private or public talks between Israelis and Jordanians, and did he draw any conclusions from that information favourable to the furtherance in the near future of the peace process?

The hon. Gentleman will accept that if I had private information on that subject during the talks I would not be able to share it with him, much as I would like to do so. It is well known that a great many discussions are going on between capitals in the middle east. It is generally accepted that impetus must be given to the peace process if there is to be progress towards a just and comprehensive settlement.

Will my hon. Friend lend his support, as others have done, to the current rapprochement between Syria and Jordan? Will he lend his weight to ensuring that any direct negotiations between the states of Israel and Jordan, or indirectly through the medium of an international peace process, are enhanced rather than detracted from by any such new axis?

When in Damascus, where I met President Assad, I had an opportunity to talk about the new rapprochement between Jordan and Syria with him and with Vice President Haddam. This is a new development in the middle east scene and I strongly hope that it will have a successful influence in advancing the peace process. It is too early to say whether it will go in precisely the manner in which my hon. Friend suggests, but it is noticeable that Syria is now showing considerable interest in playing a part in the peace process.

Would it not be advantageous to the peace process in the middle east, which Chairman Arafat is assiduously trying to pursue, if the Foreign Secretary were to convince the United States Government to abandon their commitment to the Kissinger promise, given at the insistence of Israel, that the US would not accept the PLO? Would it not help the whole peace process if the Foreign Secretary could urge the US Government to overcome, by whatever means are feasible, the intellectual limitations of the President's comprehension of anything and everything?

I find that comprehensive endorsement of Mr. Arafat's stance rather surprising. President Mubarak and King Hussein, especially the latter, have asked Mr. Arafat to make specific declarations on United Nations resolutions about Israel's right to exist within secure frontiers, but Mr. Arafat has not yet made any. Until he adopts a far clearer position in that context, he cannot expect to receive any wider international recognition.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement on the peace process in the middle east.

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

We shall continue to support all realistic efforts towards a negotiated settlement of the Arab-Israeli dispute leading to a just and comprehensive peace. It is encouraging that both King Hussein and Mr. Peres have spoken of the possibility of an international framework for peace negotiations.

Will not the welcome visit to this country next month of Mr. Peres greatly strengthen British-Israeli relations, and thereby improve our standing in the peace process negotiations? Will my hon. Friend take the opportunity to improve the atmosphere in advance of the meeting by announcing that the practice by which the Foreign Office countersigns Arab trade boycott documents will be dropped immediately?

I agree with my hon. Friend in welcoming Mr. Peres' visit to this country next month. It should be an important step in the development of bilateral relations between this country and Israel. On the practice of authentication, which is a standard legal procedure, it does not imply in any way approval of the contents of the documents, because our opposition to the Arab boycott is well known. Furthermore, the vast majority of British firms use the Arab-British chamber of commerce for that purpose.

Does my hon. Friend agree that following the recent Geneva summit, where we hope greater understanding was reached on the question of regional conflicts—I repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters)—the only realistic way towards peace in the middle east is through an international conference, the results of which must be guaranteed by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has already commented on an international conference in answer to an earlier question. We have never opposed the principle of an international conference, but we want to see that its framework is properly set up and its agenda well drawn so that it has a chance to succeed and to reach positive conclusions. The framework of the conference at present, which includes who should be represented at it, and how it should reach its decisions, or whether it should be merely for discussions, is one of the main subjects under discussion in the middle east at present.

Will the Minister confirm that there cannot be any lasting settlement in the middle east which does not recognise the simple fact that the Palestinians are just as entitled to a national homeland as any other people on the face of the earth? Will he take every opportunity of making that simple fact clear in his contacts with the Governments of the United States of America and Israel?

We have always maintained the right of the Palestinians to self-determination, and we are concerned about their present conditions in some of the occupied territories. I noted some of them myself when I went to the Gaza Strip at the end of last week. I expressed my deep concern to many leading Israelis about the economic conditions and the difficulties of Palestinians in moving towards self-sufficiency.

What is the Government's attitude to the future of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip?

As I have just said in reply to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright), we have always recognised the right of Palestinians to self-determination. We accept the principles that have been suggested, for example by King Hussein, to the effect that a form of association with Jordan may be one possibility. However, at the end of the day it must be for the people who live in those lands with their Arab neighbours to work out the right association and framework for themselves.

When Mr. Peres comes here next month, will my hon. Friend ensure that he leaves in no doubt the grave anxiety that many of us have about the continuing colonisation of the West Bank?

I understand what my hon. Friend says. It fits in with the reply that I have just given to Opposition Members. On my visit to Jerusalem a few days ago I took the opportunity to make clear the anxiety that was expressed to me by leading Palestinians in Jerusalem about the extremely difficult economic conditions, which I saw in Gaza, that many Palestinians suffer at present.

Reverting to the Government's authentication of Arab boycott documents, does the Minister not understand that what he calls a standard legal procedure, which is used to justify or in any way to place a seal of approval on an unacceptable practice—in this case, a restriction on the freedom of trade—is unacceptable, if not illegal? Was that not made plain to him when he recently visited Israel?

On the hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, the matter was not once raised with me while I was in Israel. On his first point, I should tell him that all that happens is the authentication of signatures. It does not imply approval of the documents' contents or of the boycott. Our opposition to the boycott is well known.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best chance for an international conference to succeed would be if it was held under the auspices of the United Nations? Will the Government use their position as a member of the Security Council to seek opportunities to initiate moves in the United Nations towards long-term peace in the middle east?

Much as I share my hon. Friend's desire for moves towards long-term peace in the middle east, I am not certain that it is for Britain at this stage to take the initiative in the United Nations for bringing about such a conference. That must rest, above all, with the parties to the dispute in the middle east. Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced that a conference at the United Nations, with many nations attending, would be successful. It is not always the case that the more people who are at a conference, the greater is its chance of success. Often, it is the other way round.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with progress at the Stockholm conference on security in Europe.

There has been welcome progress on procedural matters, with agreement on an informal working structure, which has narrowed the focus of the conference considerably. Progress on substance has proved harder to achieve.

In view of the Soviet acceptance of the United States' idea of annual advance notice of military manoeuvres by the Warsaw pact and NATO and its suggestion that it should be extended to air and sea manoeuvres, is there not an opportunity, before the better atmosphere created by the Geneva summit disappears entirely, for us to take an initiative at Stockholm and try to press home the view that a good document should be presented to the world at the end of the conference?

We shall try to achieve a document that contains specific commitments to adopt confidence-building measures, including those relating to land manoeuvres. If one goes beyond that into sea manoeuvres, one is in danger of going outside the terms of reference of the conference. But we all agree on the need to achieve practical progress on confidence-building measures.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give some other examples of areas of substantial progress to which the Government attach importance? What are the realistic chances of their being achieved at Stockholm?

Our proposals include provision for an exchange of information about the structure and deployment of military forces, the mandatory observation of regular military activities, site inspection and improved communications between states. They are examples of specific measures which can be agreed within the terms of reference. Progress on such matters would represent a worthwhile achievement after the great deal of work put into the Stockholm conference.

Although I welcome what the Foreign Secretary said about progress, at least on the procedural aspect of the discussions, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that, as both sides have agreed that there should be contact between the military staffs of the two alliances in limited areas, and since Secretary Weinberger has already proposed a regular exchange of views between the American and Soviet military authorities on problems of European security, the Government should now press NATO to invite the Warsaw pact to a general exchange of views on achieving security for both parts of Europe through co-operation rather than confrontation?

We all share the aim of achieving improved prospects for peace through co-operation and consultation. However, I hesitate to follow the right hon. Gentleman in calling for yet another framework within which such consultation should be conducted. There is no shortage of forums or frameworks, but there has been a shortage of progress. I am glad that Britain has put forward a significant and worthwhile proposal for progress in the MBFR negotiations, which is another example of where we are trying to make headway.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the implications for its foreign policy generally of Her Majesty's Government's refusal to impose full economic sanctions on South Africa.

The South African issue has wide implications for foreign policy as a whole and we have, therefore, maintained close consultation with other Governments. We are party to common statements of policy, both with our European Community and our Commonwealth partners, which stop short of the imposition of full economic sanctions.

Will my hon. and learned Friend confirm that if we are not able to make progress in South Africa over the next six months, and if we do not go along with further sanctions being demanded by our Commonwealth friends, we shall be subject to discrimination by those Commonwealth countries against our own trade?

There have been differences of view on this subject for many years, and I emphasise that the opposition of Her Majesty's Government to mandatory economic sanctions against South Africa is a view shared not only by the United States but by almost the entire European Community and most of the other countries of western Europe. We are not alone in our view of the matter.

What actions have been taken on the sanctions to which the British Government agreed through the EEC and Commonwealth conferences? We are led to believe that there have been no restrictions on imports of Krugerrands, and that the withdrawing of military attachés, which is part of the EEC agreement, has not been done. How effective have any sanctions to date been, because many people are saying that the Government are bringing us into disrepute in the international community by not even implementing, in the Prime Minister's words, the "teeny weeny" sanctions agreed at the Commonwealth conference?

The hon. Gentleman is incorrect in part of his question. The withdrawal of military attachés from European countries is not part of the Luxembourg package, although it is under consideration. The South African Government have stopped minting Krugerrands, and there has been no market in Krugerrands for a considerable time.

Has my hon. and learned Friend's Department made any estimate of the potential effect on employment in both this country and South Africa if full mandatory economic sanctions were ever applied?

It is difficult to make a precise estimate, but it is known that there are at least 150,000 black South Africans employed by British companies in South Africa, and there have been estimates of up to 50,000 British jobs that could be directly or indirectly affected by a policy of sanctions.

Is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government are still not in conversation with the African National Congress? Is the Minister aware that a week ago, in front of the Select Committee, the Foreign Secretary said that he did not know whether the United States was in direct conversation with the ANC? Does he know, and if so, will he tell us?

I have no reason to believe that the United States Government have been in contact with the ANC.

Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that many Conservative Members realise that economic sanctions against South Africa would have enormous reverberations throughout British industry? I make this point in particular in relation to the port of Southampton, where the dockers are still working the South African marine trade because that represents one third of their container traffic. If the Government change their course on economic sanctions, many will be unemployed.

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that aspect of the debate about economic sanctions. The Government's opposition to economic sanctions is partly for the reason set out by my hon. Friend and also because we do not believe that such a policy would succeed in achieving the fundamental and peaceful change that we all wish to see in South Africa.

Is the Minister aware that members of the State Department ' have been in continual contact with members of the ANC, and that such contacts took place in the recent visit of Mr. Chester Crocker to Lusaka? Why has the Foreign Secretary refused to allow the British Foreign Office the same freedom to investigate the situation as is allowed by the American Secretary of State to the American State Department?

We have always emphasised that we look forward to the day when the African National Congress will renounce a policy of violence. We believe that the Commonwealth initiative, agreed at Nassau, which called for dialogue between black and white South Africans in the context of a suspension of violence on both sides, ought to be an incentive to the African National Congress as well as to the South African Government to desist from any acts of violence, in the interests of reconciliation.

What incentives are the British Government giving to the South African Government to respond at all to the Commonwealth initiative, since they know that even if the initiative is a failure there will be no escalation whatsoever of sanctions by the British Government? Is it not a relief that at least the banks, on commercial grounds, are prepared to impose economic sanctions on South Africa?

I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the South African Government have already said that they are prepared to consider contacts with the Commonwealth group that was set up at the Nassau summit. That is an encouraging sign. We believe that the Commonwealth group, which includes representatives from all sections of the Commonwealth, could make an important impact in persuading all parties, including the South African Government, of the need for very early dialogue and reconciliation in that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the latest representations by Her Majesty's Government to the South African authorities on developments in that country.

On 11 November we participated in a demarche on behalf of the 12 European Community countries expressing to the South African Government our deep concern about restrictions imposed on the press, violent police methods of riot control and the continuing arrests of political and trade union leaders. On 3 December we issued a statement about the killings at Mamelodi, in which we called for a full inquiry.

Is the Minister of State aware that we welcome the fact that at least one or two Tory Members of Parliament are speaking out on this issue, unlike the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and one or two others, who seem to act in the House of Commons as representatives of the South African Government? When will the Minister realise that only when sanctions are applied by this country and by our partners in the European Community will the South African authorities understand that we are serious in opposing their vile system of government in that country?

I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman always insists upon attributing bad faith to everybody except himself. He ought to realise that people can honestly hold different opinions from his own without justifying the rather nasty comments that he insists upon making on every occasion. As for sanctions, the hon. Gentleman must appreciate that there is a common desire to see peaceful, fundamental change in South Africa, but there is a genuine difference of view as to whether mandatory sanctions would bring it about.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that if there is to be any chance of achieving a solution to the problems of South Africa which is fair to all races in that country and which does not involve immense bloodshed, it will be by encouraging a dialogue between the people of South Africa? Does he further agree that it is at least not self-evident that economic sanctions are likely to achieve that process?

Not only is it not self-evident, but we know from experience that whenever a policy of mandatory economic sanctions has been applied it has conspicuously failed to achieve even a limited degree of success.

Bearing in mind that all methods, over many years, to try to persuade the South African Government to end their abhorrent policy of apartheid have failed, should not the Government be saying that now is the time to introduce economic sanctions? Should we not take an example from the history of this country and remember the deprivation that was suffered in the cotton textile industry when efforts were made to end slavery in America?

I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that a slow but definite process of reform has begun in South Africa. For example, a recommendation has been made by the President's Council that the pass laws should be repealed. If, as is widely expected, the South African Government endorse that recommendation it will represent a fundamental move in the right direction. It is exactly reforms of that kind that we should be encouraging.

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that while it is helpful to make strong and constructive representations to the South African Government, experience shows that mandatory economic sanctions are completely counter-productive and only do damage to this country?

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that fact. Many of those who call for economic sanctions emphasise their view that it would be worth making a short sacrifice of a few months, or even a year or so, to achieve the end of apartheid. The sad fact, as we saw in Rhodesia, is that even after 15 years it was not economic sanctions that brought about change in that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assurances of the prospect of a peaceful settlement of the Iran-Iraq war were given to him by the Iraqi Foreign Minister during his visit.

The Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister gave clear assurances during his discussions in London with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and myself that Iraq was seeking a peaceful settlement of the conflict and remained ready to negotiate with Iran.

Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman take the opportunity of those discussions to raise two issues with the Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister: first, the fact that Iraq will no longer be a safe haven for terrorists such as Abu Nidal; and, secondly, the question of the continued oppression and torture by Iraq of its citizens?

In the course of the meetings that the Iraqi Foreign Minister had in this country, the first issue was certainly raised, both specifically and generally. In addition, I assure the hon. Lady that the Government are always concerned about violations of human rights and that the Iraqi Government are fully aware of our close concern with that matter. That was reaffirmed during the visit of Mr. Tariq Aziz to this country.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that an end to this detestable war depends far more on Iran than it does on Iraq? Will he explain how he can justify his sanction of the export of Chieftain tank engines for use by the armed services of Iran in this war?

I assure my hon. Friend that the Government are conscious of the need to maintain our policy of supplying to neither side any defence equipment that would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. Very little equipment of any sort—except some vehicle spares that were supplied under an old pre-revolutionary contract—has been sold recently to Iran.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has received concerning the budget of the British Council; and if he will make a statement.

We have received representations from the council itself.

Will the Minister explain why the British Council, of all overseas organisations, has been singled out for punitive cuts of 20 per cent.? Has he presented to the Treasury the British Council's claim for an extension of activities to Indonesia and China? Why is his Department so publicly supportive of the British Council but will not fight for it in private?

We cannot anticipate the publication of the public expenditure White Paper for next year. We have taken on board the representations that the council has made to us about Indonesia and China. We are extremely conscious of the good work that the British Council does, but it cannot be exempt from public expenditure restrictions.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a good idea to have a thorough going review of the value of cultural diplomacy to British policy abroad?

We have that matter under consideration.

May we be assured that the Government will not hide behind the transfer of funds from UNESCO membership to aspects of the British Council's work and will face the real obligation to increase the amount of mixed money in the British Council's budget? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that only by expanding that budget will the British Council be able to do the highly important job of promoting Britain abroad, a task which he and the House know the council does extremely well?

The whole House recognises the extremely valuable work that the British Council does. UNESCO money will be independent of any other settlement made with the British Council for the next year.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the commercial performance of high commissions, and embassies of the United Kingdom abroad.

Yes, Sir. The promotion and protection of British commercial interests, employing about a third of our front line manpower overseas, is highly valued by the business community. About 90,000 British business men are in touch each year with embassies, high commissions and subordinate posts during overseas visits. Market information inquiries have risen nearly 40 per cent. since 1979.

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer. Will he accept that some business men tell me that the performance of our embassies and high commissions abroad is variable? Will he do what he can to get more business men to come into the diplomatic service to work in our embassies and high commissions and will he try to improve the industrial experience that our diplomats receive?

Every organisation is capable of improvement. We operate an interchange of staff with the private industrial and commercial sector, necessarily on a modest scale. All officers who take up such commercial appointments for the first time attend a course to qualify them, to which contributions are made by private firms and trade. We recognise the need to do all that we can in that direction.

Will the Foreign Secretary publish in the Official Report the excellent results obtained by the high commission in Jamaica? Will he commend the high commissioner for his efforts in all trading aspects between the United Kingdom and Kingston?

I shall certainly record the hon. Gentleman's view. It is right that such a tribute should be passed to those concerned.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that part of the answer is in the hands of the business men themselves? Does he further agree that when contrasted with the efforts of many of our competitors, particularly the Japanese, British business marketing efforts abroad tend to be rather pathetic?

It is not my function to endorse such a general condemnation, but I agree that the job of selling has to be done by business men. The diplomatic and commercial services can play only a supportive role. The private sector has a crucial part to play for itself.

Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that our embassy in Santiago is doing nothing to promote the sale of Centaur armed vehicles to that repressive regime and that no export licences will be granted for any further vehicles?

Our embassy in Santiago is following the policy clearly laid down to offer no arms sales in support of the repressive measures in that country.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with experts in the field of seismology on the verification of a nuclear test ban treaty.

The United Kingdom's contribution to the work of the conference on disarmament on the verification of a nuclear test ban treaty draws upon advice from seismologists employed by the Ministry of Defence. In addition, officials are regularly in touch with seismologists outside the Government services; for example, United Kingdom experts have participated in the ad hoc group of scientific experts under the auspices of the conference on disarmament, which includes representatives from a variety of countries, including the USA and the USSR.

Will the Minister have the honesty to admit that the technology is now available to detect nuclear explosions down to the militarily significant level of one kiloton? Is it not a fact that before the breakdown of the last comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations the Soviet Union agreed to the placement of seismic stations on its territory?

It is a question not of honesty, but of a great number of scientologists—[Interruption.]—sorry, seismologists. As the House will know, the headquarters of scientology is in my constituency. The opinion of many seismologists—some employed by the Government but many not, some British and many international—is that the question of verification is not yet solved. Furthermore, it is inaccurate to claim that the 1977 to 1980 trilateral negotiations, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, were near completion. There were many practical aspects, including verification, on which agreement had not been achieved at the time the negotiations ceased.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many laymen who support the objective of a comprehensive test ban treaty are beginning to feel that the scientific community in more than one country is merely putting up obstacles to the reasonable proposals made recently. Will he seek to give the idea a greater political push?

I listened to what my hon. Friend says with great care, but the fact of the matter is that this is an area where it is essential that there should be not only verification measures that work but confidence on both sides that the verification is working. If there were to be non-compliance and that was not verified, it could lead to a breach in our national security, which would have serious consequences.

Is the Minister aware that the diplomatic correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, who has always proved a most reliable conduit for Foreign Office news, recently stated that there was now no scientific obstacle to verification and that the only obstacle was political, by which he meant the toadying of the Prime Minister to President Reagan? Therefore, will the Government support the early recalling of the conference on a comprehensive test ban agreement, since the Prime Minister herself said that she greatly regretted its being broken off last time?

I well realise from previous exchanges that the right hon. Gentleman is setting himself up as an amateur seismologist, but he is not much better as a seismologist than he was as an economist. The fact of the matter remains, as I have said before, that there is a genuine and serious division of scientific opinion. We have suggested that a committee should be formed at the conference on disarmament at which detailed questions about verification could be studied, and it is a matter of regret to us that the Soviet Union has not accepted that suggestion and has not moved forward with it.

On a point of order arising directly out of questions, Mr. Speaker. The Under-Secretary clearly said earlier that it was one of my hon. Friends who said, "Who cares?". In fact, it was none of my hon. Friends; it was his hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham). I wonder whether that could be put right. In answer to the substantive question, the people who care are those who care that the House of Commons should be told the truth.

I readily confirm that that is correct, Mr. Speaker. Had you permitted an interruption earlier I would have said so then. It was I who made that comment.

Order. I am sure that Hansard will have noted that exchange.

Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to apologise; it is for the Minister who used—

Order. I cannot be responsible for that. It will be noted.

On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. It is only a small point of order, but I am asking you for your help and assistance. You may remember that in distant days gone by we used to have European questions for 20 minutes. There are some 20 questions on European issues on the Order Paper today. Europe is responsible for our agriculture policy, for our trade policy and for a growing basket of other policies. It is only right and proper that we should have the ability, not just to question the Foreign Secretary after Council meetings, but to ask substantive questions on the subject. I wonder whether anything can be done about that.

Order. I seem to remember that in the not too distant past there were exchanges about this and it was agreed through the usual channels that EC questions should go in with foreign affairs questions. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to have that changed, his right course would be to talk to the Leader of the House.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance and perhaps some information on a question on the Order Paper. Has there been a request from the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on—

Order. I have not had that, but it does not arise directly out of questions today.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Very honourably and truthfully the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) admitted that he was responsible. I would not pursue the matter further, but it would be gracious of the Minister to at least admit that he made a mistake; no doubt a genuine mistake, but, nevertheless, a mistake. Would it not be nice if Ministers were a little gracious?

Order. It is very nearly Christmas.

If it helps the hon. Gentleman, I apologise. I did mishear; the comment came from another direction. I apologise.